Szerkesztő:G ambrus/QA About Rorschach

In this Q&A I'm trying to answer a few (not so) frequently asked question about why psychologist want to remove the Rorschach test images from Wikipedia and Commons. I've created this page because I am getting a little tired answering to arguments on various forums about the subject, repeating the same stuff over and over. It consumes a lot of my free time. This page may contain excerpts from comments made by various users.

Copyright

Is the Rorschach test material copyrighted? The author, Hermann Rorschach died in 1922.

Yes, the author has died more then 70 years ago, so initial copyright has expired. Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern, Switzerland claims to have the copyright. The following text can be seen on the box containing the plates: © Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe, AG, Bern, Switzerland, 1921, 1948, 1994. Excerpt form an e-mail by them from the Talk Page of the Rorschach Test article at the French Wikipedia:

Please take note of the fact that the Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, is
the copyright owner and holder of the worldwide trademark Rorschach.  The
publication of the Test cards has been done without our permission nor
any information. By no means we can tolerate such an infringement. We
ask you to eliminate the test plates from your Enyclopédia  within the
next five working days and confirm to us that you comply with this
request.

The French Wikipedia has since then removed the picture, and made the article semi-protected.

I think that their claim is not on legal basis and can be ignored. Hogrefe would not be the first well-known company/institution which aggressively claims copyrights that it does not have.

Then you are free to take legal actions. Please sue them for claiming copyright on Public Domain material.

I don't care. I still think that they are bluffing. It is only copyright that matters. Do you have anything else to say?

Yes, please carry on reading. Maybe you'll find it interesting.

Good faith

I still don't belive that the publisher owns the copyright. And besides, outlines can be shown without copyright violation.

Psychologists trying to remove these pictures are not doing so because of some pride or some kind of "superiority complex". Furthermore they are not doing it for the protection of the publishers copyrights either. Their ethical code, (and in some cases their oath) binds them to do so.

See this excerpt from the APA ethical code (similar is obligatory for psychologist all over the world):

9.11. Maintaining Test Security
[...] Release of Test Data. Psychologists make
reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test
materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and
contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to
this Ethics Code.

Why?

Because publishing psychometrical test to the public makes them unuseable. It threatens their validity and reliability. See excerpt:

Factors jeopardizing internal and external validity
[...]
11. Reactive effects of experimental arrangements, which would 
preclude generalization about the effect of the experimental variable
upon persons being exposed to it in non-experimental settings
[...]

This means that we are not measuring what the test initially amis to measure, the test becomes unreliabe. With the presentation of the inkblots, the usability of the test is in question.

And what about solid outlines?

The test is only valid if the participant responds spontaneously, so it doesn't matter whether the presented image is only a reproduction, outline, reduced in quality etc. Previous exposure still affects the results of the test - causing unprdictable outcome.

Why should I care about that. I meen let that be the psychologists problem.

Presenting these pictures to wide public threatens the tests reliability and it is of disadvantage to the psychologists and psychiatrists as well as to their clients. So this is not a question of copyright nor censorship. It is a matter of good faith. The Rorschach Test is a widely used diagnostic tool, which provides psychological data, just like the MRI provides neurological details and like sonography, which is commonly used during pregnancy. Consider for a moment that with a single image, you can threaten the usability of these tools. Would you agree to keep any content if it would make the results of the MRI or the Ultrasound Diagnostics unreliable?

I supose yes on the basis that it would result in people produceing a more robust system. Why don't psychologysts create new inkblots and new tests?

You may not know, but there's been decades and decades of blood, sweat, tears into testing the cards, norming data, running statistical analysis that are unimaginable to anyone outside of the field. You may think "Oh, its just a couple of cards." No. Each one is purposeful and cannot be changed [...] (taken from an unsigned post at en:Talk:Rorschach_inkblot_test)

Besides, it's not up to an Encyclopedia to trigger or participate in such processes.

So what do you suggest?

Psychologists suggest using a substitute demo image, like Commons:Image:Rorschach like Inkblot.svg which is not part of the Rorschach test set, but looks similar. All peer reviewed encyclopedias do so. If you don't like this particular image, there are plenty of other images to choose from. You can even create your own. It's fun.

Unencyclopedic

I still can't see why demo images should be better than the original. Encyclopedias are meant to spread knowledge, not to hide it. Whatever the knowledge might be.

Because it is unencyclopedic. Showing these images are threat to the test security. Presentigng them to the public makes them unuseable. Yes, encyclopedias are meant to spread knowledge, not to interfere with it. The Wikipedia article has the first Google hit for "Rorschach". Imagine an excerpt from the Rorschach test article from Wikipeda a few years in the future:

Because test material has been presented to wide public on websites  
including Wikipedia the test became unusable.

Now imagine this article with Encyclopædia Britannica instead of Wikipedia...

But it's encyclopaedic as it's showing exactly what the article describes

Then consider for a moment that you click on the Wikipedia article en:Computer virus and your computer gets infected with a Trojan. Maybe your firewall stops it, maybe not. What can be more demonstrative, then a real virus? It is exactly what the article is all about, and it is not copyrighted either. Wold you accept that as encyclopedic?

Censorship

There are a number of psychologist here on wikipedia from students to PhD, and they are editing here in their free time because they belive in the aims of Wikipedia. They are here to share their knowledge, to provide professional information to make articles more reliable. Excerpt from the essay Why Wikipedia is so great:

Moreover, there are some experts at work here. Over time, the huge
amount of solid work done by hobbyists and dilettantes can (and no
doubt will) be hugely improved upon by experts. This both makes
Wikipedia a pleasant intellectual community (or so it seems to some)
and gives us some confidence that the quality of Wikipedia articles
will, in time, if not yet, be high.

Their work here is with full accordance with the their ethical code:

PREAMBLE

Psychologists respect and protect civil and human rights and the
central importance of freedom of inquiry and expression in research,
teaching, and publication. They strive to help the public in
developing informed judgments and choices concerning human behavior.
In doing so, they perform many roles, such as researcher, educator,
diagnostician, therapist, supervisor, consultant, administrator,
social interventionist, and expert witness.  

Then why do they keep censoring? Wikipedia is not censored.

Psychologists agree. They welcome any criticism cited in all psychology related articles including the articles about the Rorschach test. But they politely ask you not to use a picture which is a threat to the test.

Besides it against the Neutral Poit of View directive.

I don't get your point. How could one single image be against NPOV?

You might or might not know it, but there are people and organisations who are against the Rorschach test or psychology in general for various reasons. To them, hiding behind copyright and censorship issues it is an implicit aim to jeopardize psychologists work, regardless of the disadvantage it causes to their clients.

What do you suggest them?

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook nor is it a forum for unregulated free speech. Wikipedia considers itself an encyclopedia.Find another place to carry on your crusade.

Psychologist fraud

I've heared, that these days reputable psychologists feel the Rorschach is unreliable at best and dagerously misleading at worst.

This doesn't mean that it is allright to put the plates in into an encyclopedia. Some other reputable psychologist think that with proper training it is a useful tool. Even those experts who think the test is debatable wouldn't agree to put it online. It's not up to Wikipedia to solve this debate by (implicitly or explicitly) favoring any of these opinions.

If you think that a psychologist uses inapropriate techniques, you are free (and encouraged) to take legal actions - simply sue him/her.

Besides, you can point at a similar inkblot to say "Look, those stupid shrinks think they can use things like that to analyze you ."