Archive for July, 2009

The controversy over the publication of the Rorschach test plates on Wikipedia entertained earlier in this post has now spread to the technology section of the New York Times.  The Times’ sensationalist ‘Has Wikipedia Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet?’ opens for a fairly standard and not so sensationalist pro versus con consideration of the merits for the case to publish or remove the ten Rorschach image plates from Wikipedia.  The essence of the debate as considered by the Times is that on one hand there may still be some value to the research potential of the plates that may be preserved by keeping them protected under the general ethos of the psychologist to prevent amateur and lay exposure to test materials, while on the other hand there is nothing legally protecting the images on the plates which have already spread into the public domain and as evidenced by their appearance on Wikipedia into public circulation.

[Plate 6 from the Rorschach test]

Quotes were taken from interested parties on both sides of the debate with short segues and tied together some level of context for why the parties may have these positions as is typical for this sort of story in the Times.  One particular party in the article took a position which seems to be both patently unfounded and potentially dangerous.  Spokesperson for a publisher of the Rorschach test Trudy Finger of Hogrefe & Huber Publishing noted that the publisher is considering legal measures against Wikipedia as a result of the plate’s publication on the site.  Apart from the simple declaration that her employer was looking into maybe pursuing some form of legal action the following quote was feature:

“It is therefore unbelievably reckless and even cynical of Wikipedia,to on one hand point out the concerns and dangers voiced by recognized scientists and important professional associations and on the other hand — in the same article — publish the test material along with supposedly ‘expected responses.’ ”

Trudy Finger [from the New York Times]

Absent from her in the article is any legal reason for the restriction of the distribution of the test plate images.  Perhaps more concerning is her personification of Wikipedia as pointing out particular concerns while still publishing the images anyways, as though Wikipedia is conflicted on this matter and acting as a person who is “unbelievably reckless”.  A characterization which conflicts with actual nature of the article on Wikipedia as a collaborative effort of differing persons in which functional consensus is reached in an article in which differing contributors additions to the article are displayed together.  Simply on such a collaborative project it would be reckless to either display only the concerns or only the image while one faction locks out the other.

[cropped screenshot of the ten plates as they appear on Wikipedia]

The dispute at its simplest is control versus freedom.  Psychologists at some level do need tests to which they can control availability and access in order to undertake quality research.  The general public though has a need for the free flow of information, and for the Rorschach test considering its age and the passing of its legal protection under copyright it is time that the test be able to assume its place in history.  Especially in light of its position as the original projective test in psychology, the Rorschach test has an even greater potential value for the culture as a whole than it might realize if it were to remain pigeonholed.  It is about time that this test be open to historical study.

So the images from the original Rorschach test are now available online at Wikipedia, and their inclusion on the page is somewhat controversial. Arguments are made that exposure to these images in the general public may be detrimental to their scientific value as they are used for testing patient’s and study subject’s interpretation of these images. The problem is that the images used in the test have fallen into the public domain outside of copyright protection and they are now entirely free from legal protection for most any use, and they may be distributed readily without restriction and used in derivative works.

The first of the ten images I recall seeing in more than a few movies, and I think most reasonable people would not think too much of this particular image having its value further compromised through public exposure. A fair number of people in a clinical environment would when asked what they think of this image respond that they are being presented with an inkblot test.

On the other hand the first time I saw this image was probably on the Wikipedia article. To say the least, this one surprised me. I can’t help but wonder if the test’s trick is that half way through they switch to color on you. When I get some time later, I’ll post the rest of them. [From Slashdot (a few days ago)]