Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia Debates Rorschach Censorship

Posted by kdawson on from the guy-drawing-the-dirty-pictures dept.

GigsVT writes "Editors on Wikipedia are engaged in an epic battle over a few piece of paper smeared with ink. The 10 inkblot images that form the classic Rorschach test have fallen into the public domain, and so including them on Wikipedia would seem to be a simple choice. However, some editors have cited the American Psychological Association's statement that exposure of the images to the public is an unethical act, since prior exposure to the images could render them ineffective as a psychological test. Is the censorship of material appropriate, when the public exposure to that material may render it useless?"

9 of 635 comments (clear)

  1. Cheatsheet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Now I can cheat!

  2. Children by shadowbearer · · Score: 0, Troll

    squabbling over which marble is prettier.

      Grow the fuck up. There are more pressing problems facing us.

      And no, I didn't RTFA.

      "Look at it this way... in a hundred years, who's gonna care?" - waitress from Terminator.

    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  3. Re:I thought they.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Whose ass did they pull the "I see a butterfly" "fixed category of scoring" from?

    In other words, your "fixed means of scoring the blots" IS hand-waving.

    I'll fix your post:

    "[I]n order to interpret the results scientifically, you have to be willing to be a whore for however much you're getting paid to play doctor"

    Geez, you'd get more accurate results from a Gypsy fortune teller. At least there you KNOW you're getting ripped off.

  4. so lock me up in your institution. by schizzzee · · Score: 0, Troll

    so really crazy is a difference of opinion. if the 10 ink blobs are not random, then because you dont agree with what i say about what i think they look like and how i go about examining each so that i can make my decision, and if you dont agree with me.. give me a padded room with a view and feed me every day. thank you very much.

  5. Re:I thought they.. by oldhack · · Score: -1, Troll

    Hey, do you do voodoo, too?

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  6. Since When... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    ...did anyone associated with wikipedia give a shit about ethics?

  7. Re:I thought they.. by ae1294 · · Score: 0, Troll

    forced to listen to Beethoven's Ode to Joy and watching Nazis have sex with prostitutes.

    A clockwork orange, show it to your girlfriend sometime! no really... show it to her, she will shut the fuck up about all that other shit...

  8. The RIGHT WAY to do a Rorschach test by mangu · · Score: 0, Troll

    The test is, and always has been, pop-psychology nonsense

    Well, that depends on what you call a "Rorschach test". Showing someone a bunch of inkspots and asking what they mean seems pretty much like "pop-psychology" to me. But that doesn't mean *anY* Rorschach test is bullshit.

    For instance, ask someone: "How do you spell 'Rorschach'?"

    If they do it correctly, you can say, with a high degree of confidence, that he or she has an excellent memory.

  9. Re:I thought they.. by afaik_ianal · · Score: -1, Troll

    but you'd have to perform all of the research that's gone into the Rorschach all over again

    WHAT RESEARCH? All the "research" confirming the validity of the test assumes the test is legitimate to begin with. Can you point to any serious research showing that the test can reveal any independently verifiable information about the patient? No? Welcome to Freudian psychology.

    "Ooh, the person sees butterflies in most of the images. They must have mummy issues. We know it's right because the Rorschach test tells us it's right!"