The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Has Wikipedia Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet? - New York Times
Newsfeed
post Wed 29th July 2009, 2:22am
Post #1


Postmaster General
********

Group: Bots
Posts: 3,272
Joined: Mon 3rd Sep 2007, 9:29pm
Member No.: 2,885



Has Wikipedia Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet? 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 ...
View the article
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Apathetic
post Wed 29th July 2009, 3:22am
Post #2


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun 3rd Aug 2008, 7:36pm
Member No.: 7,383

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



'Twas only a matter of time...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post Wed 29th July 2009, 4:25am
Post #3


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



The Rorschach test was secretive crap anyway, so who cares whether you see pretty butterflies or devils?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dtobias
post Wed 29th July 2009, 12:17pm
Post #4


Obsessive trolling idiot [per JzG]
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,213
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 2:45pm
From: Boca Raton, FL, USA
Member No.: 962

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Wed 29th July 2009, 12:36pm
Post #5


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.

Jon Awbrey, 29 Jul 2009
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dtobias
post Wed 29th July 2009, 12:47pm
Post #6


Obsessive trolling idiot [per JzG]
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,213
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 2:45pm
From: Boca Raton, FL, USA
Member No.: 962

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MBisanz
post Wed 29th July 2009, 12:56pm
Post #7


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 478
Joined: Sun 13th Apr 2008, 6:00am
Member No.: 5,693

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



It would appear the comments are trending 33-1 in WP's favor in the NYT's article. Granted this means absolutely nothing.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Wed 29th July 2009, 1:04pm
Post #8


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 29th July 2009, 8:47am) *

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
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dtobias
post Wed 29th July 2009, 1:21pm
Post #9


Obsessive trolling idiot [per JzG]
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,213
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 2:45pm
From: Boca Raton, FL, USA
Member No.: 962

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 29th July 2009, 9:04am) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 29th July 2009, 8:47am) *

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. biggrin.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Wed 29th July 2009, 1:55pm
Post #10


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 29th July 2009, 6:17am) *

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?"
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Wed 29th July 2009, 2:05pm
Post #11


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 29th July 2009, 9:21am) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 29th July 2009, 9:04am) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Wed 29th July 2009, 8:47am) *

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. biggrin.gif


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 boing.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Wed 29th July 2009, 2:07pm
Post #12


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Wed 29th July 2009, 2:17pm
Post #13


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 29th July 2009, 10:07am) *

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
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Wed 29th July 2009, 2:17pm
Post #14


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 29th July 2009, 8:07am) *

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...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LaraLove
post Wed 29th July 2009, 2:22pm
Post #15


Wikipedia BLP advocate
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,741
Joined: Mon 28th Jan 2008, 7:53pm
Member No.: 4,627

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I just clicked through the ten plates. Results of my findings: I'm surely clinically insane.

That is all.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Wed 29th July 2009, 2:23pm
Post #16


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 29th July 2009, 9:17am) *
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 misdeed and are subject to civil liability for any malpractice.
And if a psychologist gets you declared mentally incompetent, then you aren't allowed to bring civil suit against them or otherwise avail yourself of all of the above, because that psychologist has arranged to have you declared a nonperson. Sadly, this still happens, and of late it's been happening more. The pendulum swings, as always.

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Wed 29th July 2009, 2:30pm
Post #17


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 29th July 2009, 8:23am) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 29th July 2009, 9:17am) *
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 misdeed and are subject to civil liability for any malpractice.
And if a psychologist gets you declared mentally incompetent, then you aren't allowed to bring civil suit against them or otherwise avail yourself of all of the above, because that psychologist has arranged to have you declared a nonperson. Sadly, this still happens, and of late it's been happening more. The pendulum swings, as always.

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Wed 29th July 2009, 2:46pm
Post #18


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 29th July 2009, 9:30am) *
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.
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?

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Wed 29th July 2009, 3:00pm
Post #19


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 29th July 2009, 10:46am) *

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
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Wed 29th July 2009, 3:08pm
Post #20


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 29th July 2009, 8:46am) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 29th July 2009, 9:30am) *
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.
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?

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st 10 14, 1:30pm