User talk:24.174.8.32

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Rorschach

Although I completely agree with you that the Rorschach images should not be shown (I am a psychologist), you are fighting a losing battle if you try to eliminate the image altogether. This explosive debate has raged for over a year now. There have been edit wars (some of them were archived) resulting in the page being protected from further editing several times. Sometimes the page was protected with the image showing, and no one could change it. Things finally settled down recently with a compromise to make the image available only if the user clicks a link (to allow the user not to invalidate the test if he ever takes it). Your recent removal of that process, although well-intentioned, technically violates Wikipedia's spirit of consensus that resulted in the compromise.

As much as I wish you were right that the images are under copyright, that sadly is not the case. The copyright expired 70 years after H. Rorschach created the images. The publisher, Hogrefe & Huber, has a trademark for the test as it is printed on the cards, but the images themselves are no longer copyrighted. That's another battle we have fought, and we even pulled Hogrefe & Huber into the fray, to no avail.

Although you are perfectly entitled to edit as you choose (assuming you don't violate Wikipedia policies), let me point out a pattern I've noticed in the long and messy debate over displaying the image. Most (if not all) of the advocates for showing the image tend to develop the attitude: "We are going to do it because we can." And I also think the next step in this argument has manifest also: "We are going to show you that we can do it because you don't want us to." If editors like you and me make "anti-display" comments on the Talk page (or even discuss the image without taking a side), it seems to fan the flames and the "display" advocates jump on the bandwagon and add the image (without the click-to-see). So my approach has been, if the image is not immediately seen when opening the article, I don't mention it. I'm not trying to tell you what to do, but my opinion is that if you continue to discuss the issue, someone will soon start an edit war and the page will be protected from editing again, possibly with the image displayed.

That having been said, you are quite entitled to discuss any issue on the Talk page as much as you wish. I was making an observation from over a year of dealing with this issue. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

But the wikipedia has trascended that and is not represented by a few guys that want to do things "because they can".
Unfortunately I have to disagree with you based on much experience with Wikipedia and the Rorschach page. There is no legal protection for the images, and Wikipedia's "anyone-can-edit" policy puts those of us who try to follow professional ethics in the minority. Most other encyclopedias have the advantage of some degree of editorial control by experts.
I have even had to fight this battle with other psychologists who are anti-Rorschach because their understanding of it is based on the status of the Rorschach 40 years ago. You don't see this degree of controversy on pages such as the MMPI, and not just because the text of the items is protected by copyright; it's also because the MMPI does not have as many misinformed critics within the profession as the Rorschach does.
I think the way it is now (click-to-see) is that best that we will ever get. Even that is subject to change if enough uninformed (and uncaring) editors decide to stir things up again.
Thanks for your reply. Ward3001 (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
if we took all the people that have issue with this particular page. The ones that would like to see the links to the images gone would win.
Anything is possible, but I think if that was true the issue would have been settled long ago. I applaud your efforts, even though I am doubtful that you will be successful.
it would be shown as another case in which self-regulation did not work
Maybe I'm cynical (and exhausted) from the battle (and this isn't the only page with this problem that I've had to contend with; it's just one of the worst in the field of psychology). But I think it is not entirely inaccurate that self-regulation does not work on Wikipedia. The administrator system helps, but not nearly enough. Even less controversial transgressions, such as blatant vandalism and POV-pushing are tolerated up to a point by many administrators. There seems to be an institutional attitude of "not biting the newcomer", or "vandals might change", etc. that takes precedence over developing a quality encyclopedia. Not that I think Wikipedia is entirely useless. For breadth and depth of coverage, it probably can't be beaten, not to mention that it's free. But for accuracy, I tend to be quite skeptical. Most editors like me don't have the time to take the battles to mediation and arbitration, which can be a frustrating and lengthy process. And it sometimes doesn't seem to help very much.
Anyway, I again thank you for your efforts and will do what I can to help with the limited amount of time I have. Ward3001 (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. To get more details about how the "sides" developed and the controversy developed, look through the Talk page, including the archives. In particular, look for headings such as "Image" or "Copyright". Ward3001 (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rorschach image

I assume that you and User:Dela Rabadilla are the same.
I understand the dynamics of discusions, and how people get tired. I personally very much appreciate the consensus that you helped achieve. I also think that the current consensus suffers from the same problem of people getting tired, and is not stable. I have read what was discussed before and I come fresh, plus I have not seen anyone propose the same thing I am proposing. With the benefit of hindsight it may be that if image replacement had been proposed before, a much stronger consensus would be in place, instead of what looks to be a compromise by exaustion.

I don't have time right now to find the fake inkblot that was used a long time ago. Another "semi-fake" image that was used is this one, which is a blackened version of Card I. Very similar argument: use an inkblot that is not a Rorschach inkblot. This (and the fake blot I referred to above) were considerations in all of the controversy and debate.
I still strongly favor leaving the image as it is now. One reason is that I don't want to start an edit war that will result in the current image ending up at the top of the page without the click-to-see option. That has happened in the past.
Don't make any changes unless other opinions are expressed and a clear change of consensus emerges. Ward3001 (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)