Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ News Worth Discussing _ Has Wikipedia Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet? - New York Times
Posted by: Newsfeed
http://news.google.com/news/url?fd=R&sa=T&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2009%2F07%2F29%2Ftechnology%2Finternet%2F29inkblot.html&usg=AFQjCNF1OQXImAI6ohV0GoS7IAIMhWRJuQ New York Times
There are tests that have right answers, which are returned with a number on top in a red circle, and there are tests with open-ended ...
http://news.google.com/news/url?fd=R&sa=T&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2009%2F07%2F29%2Ftechnology%2Finternet%2F29inkblot.html&usg=AFQjCNF1OQXImAI6ohV0GoS7IAIMhWRJuQ
Posted by: Apathetic
'Twas only a matter of time...
Posted by: Malleus
The Rorschach test was secretive crap anyway, so who cares whether you see pretty butterflies or devils?
Posted by: dtobias
Since those inkblots were published before 1923, they are definitely public domain in the United States. The pshrinks don't even have the sort of claim the NPG is making to a new copyright based on doing new work to make a photograph of an old picture. They're just trying to get everybody else to comply with their self-serving practices, using vague, ill-founded legal threats. The same bunch has already gotten American Mensa to stop giving specific IQ scores to those who take their tests, because that would be "practicing psychology without a license" and supposedly against various state laws. (The Mensa test is now just "pass/fail" where they only tell you if you're accepted or not.) Anything that knocks the psychologists down a few pegs is fine with me. (No, I'm not using Wikipedia as a revenge platform... nosirree.)
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
Same Ol' Same Ol' —
Wikipediots, having no professional standards themselves, nor any respect for anyone else's, set themselves up at the right hand of Jimbo, to judge the living and the dead — and to dictate whether professionals have a right to their professions in the meantime.
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/technology/internet/29inkblot.html?permid=128#comment128
Posted by: dtobias
I don't support anybody having a "right to their profession" in the sense of being able to use the legal system to suppress anybody else who might threaten the monopoly of you and your friends over whatever field of practice you do.
Posted by: MBisanz
It would appear the comments are trending 33-1 in WP's favor in the NYT's article. Granted this means absolutely nothing.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
I don't support anybody having a "right to their profession" in the sense of being able to use the legal system to suppress anybody else who might threaten the monopoly of you and your friends over whatever field of practice you do.
Fail
Posted by: dtobias
I don't support anybody having a "right to their profession" in the sense of being able to use the legal system to suppress anybody else who might threaten the monopoly of you and your friends over whatever field of practice you do.
Fail
Now you're giving pass/fail tests like Mensa? If you were a licensed psychologist, you could make a more detailed diagnosis of me.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
Since those inkblots were published before 1923, they are definitely public domain in the United States. The pshrinks don't even have the sort of claim the NPG is making to a new copyright based on doing new work to make a photograph of an old picture. They're just trying to get everybody else to comply with their self-serving practices, using vague, ill-founded legal threats. The same bunch has already gotten American Mensa to stop giving specific IQ scores to those who take their tests, because that would be "practicing psychology without a license" and supposedly against various state laws. (The Mensa test is now just "pass/fail" where they only tell you if you're accepted or not.) Anything that knocks the psychologists down a few pegs is fine with me. (No, I'm not using Wikipedia as a revenge platform... nosirree.)
I didn't know Mensa didn't use full safeguards and rigors, including the use of licensed professionals administering the tests. It seems to me if you want to hold your members out as having a certain psychological attribute you would want to do so. Is it like fortune telling then? Does the Mensa wall plaque say "for entertainment purposes only?"
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
I don't support anybody having a "right to their profession" in the sense of being able to use the legal system to suppress anybody else who might threaten the monopoly of you and your friends over whatever field of practice you do.
Fail
Now you're giving pass/fail tests like Mensa? If you were a licensed psychologist, you could make a more detailed diagnosis of me.
Let us both give thanks that the legal system in most civilized countries prohibits me from even trying to do that — at any price.
Ja Ja
Posted by: Kelly Martin
The Rorschach blots are routinely used for very questionable purposes (read up on the history of psychological testing as a means to restrict freedom sometimes, it's very interesting), and it's almost without doubt that at least part of the campaign to include them on Wikipedia is driven by one of the many campaigns against dubious psychological testing.
The American Psychological Association has, of late, been waging a very determined war to keep its profession from being subjected to public scrutiny. Why this might be is certainly a matter that could be discussed (but probably shouldn't be) but the point here is that this has become one of those "battleground" issues, and the Rorschach blots is just one of the fronts on which this battle is being fought, and Wikipedia is just one of the theatres in which this war is being fought.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
The Rorschach blots are routinely used for very questionable purposes (read up on the history of psychological testing as a means to restrict freedom sometimes, it's very interesting), and it's almost without doubt that at least part of the campaign to include them on Wikipedia is driven by one of the many campaigns against dubious psychological testing.
The American Psychological Association has, of late, been waging a very determined war to keep its profession from being subjected to public scrutiny. Why this might be is certainly a matter that could be discussed (but probably shouldn't be) but the point here is that this has become one of those "battleground" issues, and the Rorschach blots is just one of the fronts on which this battle is being fought, and Wikipedia is just one of the theatres in which this war is being fought.
I think we're all for public scrutiny of all the professions, all the time.
Is psychoanalysis really dead? Maybe so, maybe not.
Is Wikipedia the theatre to decide its worth?
I don't think so …
Jon Awbrey
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
The Rorschach blots are routinely used for very questionable purposes (read up on the history of psychological testing as a means to restrict freedom sometimes, it's very interesting), and it's almost without doubt that at least part of the campaign to include them on Wikipedia is driven by one of the many campaigns against dubious psychological testing.
The American Psychological Association has, of late, been waging a very determined war to keep its profession from being subjected to public scrutiny. Why this might be is certainly a matter that could be discussed (but probably shouldn't be) but the point here is that this has become one of those "battleground" issues, and the Rorschach blots is just one of the fronts on which this battle is being fought, and Wikipedia is just one of the theatres in which this war is being fought.
There are certainly some very dark chapters in the history of psychology. Currently, however, psychologists undergo accredited university training, publish in peer reviewed journals, are licensed under laws that permit public input (including some non-psychologist members) into the criteria, and provides the public with a system of professional responsibility and a grievance process that oversees and punishes abuses. They are also not subject to blanket immunity for their misdeeds and are subject to civil liability for any malpractice. Contrast this with Wikipedia...
Posted by: LaraLove
I just clicked through the ten plates. Results of my findings: I'm surely clinically insane.
That is all.
Posted by: Kelly Martin
Wikipedia is just one of the battle grounds on which this broader battle is being fought. Fundamentally, this issue isn't about Wikipedia, except insofar as Wikipedia is a great forum for issue advocacy. But we knew that already. Yawn. Move along, nothing new to see here.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
Wikipedia is just one of the battle grounds on which this broader battle is being fought. Fundamentally, this issue isn't about Wikipedia, except insofar as Wikipedia is a great forum for issue advocacy. But we knew that already. Yawn. Move along, nothing new to see here.
I'm certain that you are aware that their are elaborate safeguards, including free appointed legal counsel, guardian ad litems and a right to an independent evaluation. Currently the system is more likely to dump the untreated on the street (and then on to jails) than to falsely determine someone to be mentally ill to the extent that they need to have their civil liberties curtailed.
Posted by: Kelly Martin
But I really don't want this thread to turn into an indictment of the public mental health system in the United States; that's neither here nor there. The takeaway from this whole situation is that Wikipedia is routinely used as a forum for public debate. We knew that already.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
Those safeguards are routinely circumvented in some jurisdictions. The threat of commitment is frequently used, especially in smaller communities, to force unpopular people to comply with community pressures or leave town. If the judge (who, of course, is good friends with the prosecutor, chief of police, state-appointed attorney, and state-appointed psychologist) denies your request for an independent evaluation and you're locked up somewhere with no access to communication, and there is nobody on the outside to advocate for you, just how do you vindicate your rights?
The best description of Wikipedia I've read in a long, long time.
Jon Awbrey
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
But I really don't want this thread to turn into an indictment of the public mental health system in the United States; that's neither here nor there. The takeaway from this whole situation is that Wikipedia is routinely used as a forum for public debate. We knew that already.
I think it is true that the threat of commitment often is used to coerce people into treatment and that only a minority of cases involve any process whatsoever. I'm puzzled over whether the pendulum was swinging again as it seems to me that no one is making expensive treatment resources more available either n the form of institutions or community based services. In mental health generally no but perhaps in the area of seniors whose families raise concerns about dementia or other conditions effecting mental faculties associated with aging. The potential of abuse here is great. The early appointment of a GAL, which most judges do liberally if anyone, including the subject of the proceeding, raises any concerns about the matter is probably the best path to protecting rights. Once this happens it is likely that the GAL, who is charged with doing what is best for the person not their desires, will insist that a attorney is appointed to protect the individuals wishes if that conflicts with how she sees the best interests.
Posted by: LaraLove
Those safeguards are routinely circumvented in some jurisdictions. The threat of commitment is frequently used, especially in smaller communities, to force unpopular people to comply with community pressures or leave town. If the judge (who, of course, is good friends with the prosecutor, chief of police, state-appointed attorney, and state-appointed psychologist) denies your request for an independent evaluation and you're locked up somewhere with no access to communication, and there is nobody on the outside to advocate for you, just how do you vindicate your rights?
The best description of Wikipedia I've read in a long, long time.
Jon Awbrey
It really is.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
Those safeguards are routinely circumvented in some jurisdictions. The threat of commitment is frequently used, especially in smaller communities, to force unpopular people to comply with community pressures or leave town. If the judge (who, of course, is good friends with the prosecutor, chief of police, state-appointed attorney, and state-appointed psychologist) denies your request for an independent evaluation and you're locked up somewhere with no access to communication, and there is nobody on the outside to advocate for you, just how do you vindicate your rights?
The best description of Wikipedia I've read in a long, long time.
Jon Awbrey
It really is.
So just replace ArbCom with a county probate court.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
The takeaway from this whole situation is that Wikipedia is routinely used as a forum for public debate. We knew that already.
It is not just that something advertised as an "encyclopedia" is really a forum for public debate. People can sit around debating whether a bridge, say, is safe. And if it's really an issue they can call in the engineers to test its trussworthiness.
Wikipedia is something advertised as an encyclopedia, one that is really a forum for non-excommunicant debate — but it goes way beyond that — it gives anyone among the mass debaters who chooses to do so the tools to pre-empt the debate by blowing up the bridge.
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/technology/internet/29inkblot.html?permid=188#comment188
Posted by: dtobias
I didn't know Mensa didn't use full safeguards and rigors, including the use of licensed professionals administering the tests. It seems to me if you want to hold your members out as having a certain psychological attribute you would want to do so. Is it like fortune telling then? Does the Mensa wall plaque say "for entertainment purposes only?"
Mensa has a Supervisory Psychologist at the national and international levels to certify that proper test standards are used; he/she is licensed. However, the local administration of the tests is by volunteer proctors who have to undergo some minor training but aren't psychologists; that is why the psychologist profession insists Mensa not actually call the tests "IQ tests" or give a precise score from them.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
I didn't know Mensa didn't use full safeguards and rigors, including the use of licensed professionals administering the tests. It seems to me if you want to hold your members out as having a certain psychological attribute you would want to do so. Is it like fortune telling then? Does the Mensa wall plaque say "for entertainment purposes only?"
Mensa has a Supervisory Psychologist at the national and international levels to certify that proper test standards are used; he/she is licensed. However, the local administration of the tests is by volunteer proctors who have to undergo some minor training but aren't psychologists; that is why the psychologist profession insists Mensa not actually call the tests "IQ tests" or give a precise score from them.
So Mensa employees a psychologist who does not adhere to the standards of the profession for the purpose of administering the tests?
Posted by: Apathetic
Fox video wherein one anchorman gives a mock Rorschach test to the other two:
http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/good_day_la/The_Crew_Take_The_Rorschach_Test_20090729
Posted by: Somey
More importantly, does this mean my own IQ score of 457 is likely to be declared "invalid" merely because the test was administered by Squeebles, my pet hamster?
Squeebles won't be happy about that... not at all.
Posted by: zvook
I realized this had become very public when I read the wiki-curious Cohen writing about it in the NYT, but it was still a bit of a shock to see Jay Walsh by satellite link on the BBC's flagship current affairs programme, Newsnight, just now. An incredulous-seeming Kirsty Wark was asking him questions like, "Do you have a moral responsibility to society? Jay Walsh?" and, "If it could be shown that this was damaging, clinically, would you take the images down? I mean, you do have the power to take them down, it's not some sort of anarchic website?" (A clearly uncomfortable Jay Walsh: "It's complicated.")
I'm not of a miiiiind to fight the corner of Reichian mumbo-jumbo even if it is vs. Wikipedia, but it's true to say the Wikimedia Foundation came off as irresponsible and Walsh, incoherent.
Posted by: dtobias
So far, it seems like in pretty much every one of these cases where people here on WR have declared Wikipedia / Wikimedia to have shown itself publicly as reckless, irresponsible, harmful, and all of that other stuff, the end result has been that the general public finds it mildly funny but doesn't really care, the techie crowd actively sides with Wikipedia, and everybody keeps on using Wikipedia just as much as (or more than) before. Meanwhile, whatever institution is on the other side of the controversy either backs off completely or reaches some kind of uneasy truce where everybody can let the fight simmer down. There hasn't yet been anything even vaguely resembling the decisive victory over Wikipedia that you guys have been hoping for.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
So far, it seems like in pretty much every one of these cases where people here on WR have declared Wikipedia / Wikimedia to have shown itself publicly as reckless, irresponsible, harmful, and all of that other stuff, the end result has been that the general public finds it mildly funny but doesn't really care, the techie crowd actively sides with Wikipedia, and everybody keeps on using Wikipedia just as much as (or more than) before. Meanwhile, whatever institution is on the other side of the controversy either backs off completely or reaches some kind of uneasy truce where everybody can let the fight simmer down. There hasn't yet been anything even vaguely resembling the decisive victory over Wikipedia that you guys have been hoping for.
Essjay. Seigenthaler.
Posted by: thekohser
Essjay. Seigenthaler.
Doran. Marsden. Wikia Search.
Posted by: Malleus
Psychologists don't have that power, unlike trick cyclists.
The Rorschach pictures should have been published long ago, and all psychologists depending on their secrecy for their mumbo-jumbo should be struck off and sent packing.
Posted by: Milton Roe
More importantly, does this mean my own IQ score of 457 is likely to be declared "invalid" merely because the test was administered by Squeebles, my pet hamster?
Squeebles won't be happy about that... not at all.
The only proper IQ tests given by animals are administered by cats. Differentiate "I want out" meow from "I want a can of catfood" meow, and you pass. Barely.
Hey, I'm walkin' here!
Posted by: Apathetic
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rorschach_test_images
Lulzworthy comments from the talk page from (an apparent raging psychotic ;>) iridescent:
*Who is going to write the [[WP:ALT|alt text]]? —mattisse 20:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
::Ooh, can I have a go? [[File:Rorschach blot 04.jpg|alt=Fat chick on a motorbike... no, wait, a sheepskin rug... oh, hang on, it's a butterfly... or is it a flasher with an improbably long manhood...]] – iridescent 20:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Posted by: Cla68
Why don't psychologists want the Rorschach images freely available on the web? Some possible explanations:
- Psychologists feel that their profession and credibility are under constant attack and want to control/protect their methods and image as much as possible.
- There are too many psychologists out there competing with each other for a scarce amount of work and prestige, therefore they don't want any of their tools taken away from them.
- They genuinely believe that the Rorshach test is an effective tool and are trying to protect its integrity.
Compare/contrast this with polygraph profession. When someone "reveals" the "secrets" behind polygraphs, such as http://www.antipolygraph.org/, professional polygraph examiners don't appear to http://www.polygraphplace.com/ubb/NonCGI/Forum6/HTML/000040.html
Posted by: CharlotteWebb
Is there any reason not to merge this with the previous thread:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=24972
(or vice versa, I don't see how it fits in "support group")
Posted by: Apathetic
(or vice versa, I don't see how it fits in "support group")
I wondered why it was moved to support group as well ... ?