User talk:Doc James/Suppression of content

A rough draft

This is currently just a rough draft. Further suggestions welcome.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this already covered by our policy on not being censored? Which ground does this cover that is not already covered by existing policy? Chillum 14:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It makes it perfectly and utterly clear that content will not be suppressed based on third party opinion as some seem to not consider WP:not censored applicable. I guess a preferable option might be just to clarify WP:not censored so that it specifically covers concerns of harm from medical information. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the existing policy falls short of describing what censorship is and merely describes what it isn't. Your proposal is a step in the right direction. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Chillum, perhaps this should be added to or an addendum, or even a full policy spin out of WP:NOTCENSORED. An idea, but I'm not sure how valid it is. Verbal chat 17:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems worth consideration. Chillum 17:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd see this as a welcomed addition to the NOTCENSORED page, rather the creation of a whole new policy. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 18:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal

Wikipedia's legal liability is the responsibility of Mike Godwin, not individual editors. Editors may retain counsel at their own prerogative. Users should be cautious not to run afoul of our No legal threats policy when discussing potential legal issues and making comments that may be construed as (a) legal threat(s). –xeno^talk 17:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You have found only the one specific situation where the psychological test - Rorschach - appears in the public domain in some countries. There is not the need for policies about the copyrighted information, nor is the need present for informations under licences from the publishers of the tests. Persons who violate these will confront already existing policies from the laws. So your policy is not needed. You will maybe not know that test publishers will send their lawyers if judges and courts do not agree to seal up the psychological testing information for the courts case. And will also take the actions in the courts for the publication in media. I have read the wikpedia policy which would cause such to be removed. Your interest in the psychological testing is rather a curiosity, or perhaps only you have the interest in freedom of the informations. I write respectfully. Mex-psych (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2009(UTC)

I take this as a legal threat. One is allowed to paraphrase copyrighted material. Cheers--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be writing respectfully, Mex-psych, but that doesn't sound very respectful really. --LjL (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our legal counsel has looked at this issue and found that it is not an issue. Chillum 21:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That only considered copyright. Tort law is another case. If something bad happens due to incomplete information caused by a test rendered useless, someone will probably go after wikipedia, the guy who posted the stuff, James Heilman, Heilman's employer, etc. If Johnny wanted to play football after his consussion, used wikipedia to do better on the Wisconsin Card Sorting test than he would have otherwise, got to play again based on his performance, and got injured very badly, I suspect that someone will be going after someone. If Jimmy used wikipedia to rendered his Rorschach useless and his psychosis wasn't discovered until he hurt someone or himself, likewise (and yes, psychologists do write about the limitations in their reports: "Rorschach could not be completed because pt. had studied it on wikipedia. Results must be viewed cautiously because some information could not be obtained to the extent that would be preferable for this reason."). A good attorney in civil cases can be quite successsful. Especially given that the professional organizations have all warned of the harm involved in posting the questions and answers to such tests and that these warning have been pasted all over these talk pages and are well known to the ones who chose to post the test materials anyways. All it will take will be one accident, somewhere.Faustian (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tort Law would seem to be covered covered in the Wikipedia:Disclaimers. One could easily point to The Anarchist Cookbook as a perfect example of just because someone makes the information available they cannot be held responsible on how someone uses that information. I should point out that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy applies here as well.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very careful bringing up legal issues on Wikipedia, we are not lawyers and should not act like we are. In almost every case such concerns need to be dealt with directly through the foundation. It is not appropriate to warn about potential civil suites on Wikipedia, it could be interpreted as a legal threat. Chillum 22:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that apply to some random person attempting an instrument landing after reading about it on Wikipedia, or someone making a bomb after learning here about one of several types of explosives, or electrocuting themselves after discovering and using some self-made biofeedback system, or or or? --LjL (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clear that up immediately: I don't currently use these tests and am not threatening anybody. It seems that the case of psychological tests is much more clear than your hypotheticals. We have explicit warnings by the professional organizations that posting the information is harmful. Several psychologists have even given possible harmful scenarios. The exact info warned about gets posted anyways after the warning. So now we wait to see if something happens and what the result will be.Faustian (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clear? Clear? Clearer than it's clear that to build a bomb one needs knowledge of explosives, to fly a plane one needs some knowledge of aircraft? Perhaps these ones are just so clear nobody bothers to point them out - and yet they're on Wikipedia, anyway, and nobody seems set out to stop that? --LjL (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One can learn how to fly a plane with Microsoft Flight Simulator sufficiently well to takeoff and land any of a number of major aircraft. Should Microsoft be reprimanded? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was some debate about that after 9/11, or at least I recall reading so on the Microsoft Flight Simulator article. Of course, I consider that very silly. --LjL (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so do I. Very similar to this case actually.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The creation of Microsoft Test Simulator is not in itself a harmful act. At least, nobody has declared it to be such. On the other hand various national organizations representing the profession that created these very tests have officially declared that the publication of test materials is in itself a harmful act and have recommended not doing so. The Canadian Psychological Association has even been so specific as to declare that posting test items and answers on wikipedia is harmful. So the warnings were clear, they were heard and then they were ignored. Some editors have claimed that the issue of harm is irrelevent, the important thing is for the information to be out there no matter what the consequences. This would be an interesting thing to say during a civil case and needless to say such words would be reproduced in such a case. As fort he other analogy - making bombs - is there a page on wikipedia that directly teaches one how to make a bomb? (remember, th harm of showing questions and answers is direct). If so, and if someone made one, and if they did so thanks to the wikipedia page, and if there was eviodence of wikipedia being warned not to do that, I think there would be a good case for victims to seek compensation. But as far as I know no bomb has been made through a wikipedia bomb-making page. OTOH we now have several wikipedia test-ruining pages. So the first step is accomplished.

A better analogy would be if someone leaked and published onto wikipedia an upcoming medical licensing exam. Setting aside the issue of copyright penalties, I suspect there would be further civil penalties in order to pay for the damage caused by wikipedia (printing new tests, lost work time preparing for a test that can now no longer be taken, etc.). Not to mention if it was proven that someone cheated on the test thanks to leaked info wikipedia, and therefore caused harm to patients by practicing without being qualified. Faustian (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the argument that our medical disclaimer is more than enough? I mean, if some harm were to come from publishing these images (which I don't see happening by the way, since the vast majority of people viewing this article will not be subjected to the test), then anyone willing to take Wikipedia, James Heilman etc. to court should understand the importance of the existence of a medical disclaimer. Just like any website has a policy that you automatically agree to by using the website, the same applies to medical content on the encyclopaedia. Ultimately, no law has been broken here, and nor will it ever be in this regard, since we are protected by our disclaimer stating that any medical information here, including psychological tests, is not guaranteed to be entirely accurate, or safe to use. Then again, I am not a lawyer, but to me this seems perfectly reasonable. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 10:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One would have to scroll past all the harmful images and click the bottom on the bottom of the screen to read the medical disclaimer. Not very impressive. Moreover, the issue isn't people using the info in an unsafe manner but the information (meaning, specifically, test answers and test items) being there at all. Faustian (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're actually disagreeing with is WP:Disclaimers and WP:No disclaimers? Why don't you bring the issue to the relevant talk pages then? --LjL (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civil penalities? If the people making the test were so foolish to put the test material in the public domain thus letting everyone legally use them for any purpose? I really doubt it. Anyway, I don't think these baseless indirect legal threats are getting anyone very scared. --LjL (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info was included in textbooks and professional journals and if it had stayed there it weould have been obscure. The people making the tests didn't put the info on a popular website. Wikipedia did. After being explictly warned by the professional organizations that this would be harmful. So now we wait until harm eventually happens to see what the consequences of that harm will be for wikipedia and/or the people who posted the harmful info (although only one was foolish enough to reveal his identity). You might want to reflect on the wikipedia policies concerning living people and the purposes of those policies, from a legal point of view. Please don't accuse me of making direct or indirect legal threats. I have stated that I'm not suing anybody nor would be in a piosition to do so as I don't use these tests currently. Warning someone standing on the edge of a cliff that if he doesn't move over he might fall is not making an indirect threat that I might push him over.Faustian (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like indirect legal threats to me. Akin to making disrespectful statements and then adding "respectfully"... --LjL (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you misinterpret what I have written despite my clear explanation.Faustian (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, please: how do your words not easily result in "severely inhibit free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Wikipedia remains neutral"? And how would I think this is not the intended effect, after it's become clear from the RfC that current consensus is strikingly against your view of content suppression? --LjL (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my words that are the problem, it's the potential consequences of your actions. Don't blame the messenger.Faustian (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, however, that I don't recall anyone asking for your opinion about the consequences of their actions. --LjL (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes your profession it seems only has obscurity standing between it and complete destruction. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but posting cheat sheets of tests that reduce harm is causing harm. Simple as that. And that's the statement of the very profession that created those tests. Funny way of describing not having cheat sheets, questions and answers to tests on a popular website - "obscurity."Faustian (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"but posting cheat sheets of tests that reduce harm is causing harm." I'm sorry, but it's simply not true! Yes, obscurity is a good word. There is a more rational field, cryptography, in which the notions of security by obscurity and snake oil are well known. Such tests that only work as long as the details are not known are security by obscurity and snake oil. The field of cryptography has quickly learned that hiding details about cryptographic algorithms is a bad thing to do and that the need for security by obscurity alone is already a reason against using some particular cryptographic method. Put in your language, it causes harm to publish cryptoanalysis methods for widely used encryption algorithms that are used even to encrypt top secret things, but it's still done, and rightly so. --rtc (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So any test that is screwed up when test-takers have access to the cheat sheet, the questions and answers is "snake oil" and "security by obscurity" according to you. Thanks for sharing your opinion.Faustian (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not sharing a real argument. --rtc (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now Faustian sees legal consequences to the addition of these images. This site [1] has tee shirts, stamps, dog cloths, neck ties, and button all with the Rorschach images on them. Does that mean that the people who wear this clothing will also be open to legal assault? How about the postal service? Or just the places that sell them? My tee shirt is in the mail.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped discussing the legal stuff, but since you insist on continuing the conversation I will reply. Go ahead and take your chances. You have posted all the images, and people who would be given the Rorschach would probably be more likely to see the image off wikipedia than off some t-shirt. You have also posted cheat sheets and images of other tests (the Wisconsin) that are used frequently to see if someone is capable of once again flying a plane, or playing sports, or driving busses or cars after having sustained head injuries. By doing so you - and wikipedia - have some responsibility for the consequences. You've been explicitly warned by statements by the organizations representing the makers of those very tests that what you are doing causes concrete harm to the generral public. You dismiss this statement as "theoretical." So now I guess it's just time to wait until something bad happens and it ceases being "theoretial." Hopefully not enough people actually read up on this to be harmed by what you've done, in which case, ironically, it is your security also that will depend on obscurity. But it's big world out there, and I suspect that unfortunately, eventually in the coming years something bad will happen.Faustian (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People go on Wikipedia willingly, most of the time. They don't get to see people's t-shirts in the street by choice, on the other hand. --LjL (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent I agree let wait and see. Now if only those patronizing the rest of use would only let things be.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Realistic Wording

The APA and CPA state "concrete harm" with respect to the psychological tests, and the information the APA describes as harmful is limited to test materials, not information about the tests in general. An honest policy proposal would state exactly that: "This should occur regardless of published statements by health organizations which claim that such spreading such information represents concrete harm to the public." Here is the actual statement by the APA: [2] "Disclosure of secure testing materials (e.g., test items, test scoring, or test protocols) to unqualified persons may decrease the test's validity. Availability of test items to an unqualified person can not only render the test invalid for any future use with that individual, but also jeopardizes the security and integrity of the test for other persons who may be exposed to test items and responses. Such release imposes very concrete harm to the general public - loss of effective assessment tools. Because there are a limited number of standardized psychological tests considered appropriate for a given purpose (in some instances only a single instrument), they cannot easily be replaced or substituted if an individual obtains prior knowledge of item content or the security of the test is otherwise compromised."

Let's avoid weasel words with repect to what the APA actually said and what the APA seeks to suppress. Basically, test questions and answers. So wrote your proposed policy to reflect exactly that. Don't write it to create a false impression that the organizations don't nercessarily consider what you're doing harmful or that anyone iss eeking to limit information about tests in general.Faustian (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's not pretend that harm wont happen. As the CPA has said "An inaccurate reporting or accounting of a child’s intelligence or cognitive ability can have profound impact on the life of the child". --Vannin (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the disclosure of test data that is harmful, but people using such tests in the first place. It's like shooting to the left of someone and then claiming it's not the shooting that is harmful, but one telling the person that he has the ability to move to the left. It's the stance of the APA, which seeks to protect bad methods from critical tests that show their untenability, that is unethical, not people disclosing the details of the methods and so making the lack of validity of these methods apparent. A test that stops working or gives different results if its details are known to the testee are unscientific and should not be used, period. Unfortunately, a lot of things in the field of psychology, especially psychological tests, are still unscientific nonsense. (Not claiming that other fields don't have similar issues, but this area in psychology is especially notorious and will hopefully be wiped out soon.) --rtc (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is really not the place of Wikipedia to be deciding the value of these tests rtc, we are supposed to be neutral. Chillum 00:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite right; Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral, and neutral only in that they should contain all published positions on the issues and no original research. But of course Wikipedia and Wikipedians amd Wikipedia's policies are not neutral: Wikipedia's policies, according to which Wikipedians are supposed to act, often contradict policies made by many other organizations. For example, as is the case here, organizations often want something not to be included in some Wikipedia article, despite of its relevance and proper publication. Of course it's okay to discuss such isues and debate policies and argue against supposedly ethical policies of other organizations where they contradict wikipedia policies. --rtc (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When crafting policy designed to effect content then we do in fact need to be neutral in our reasoning, if the policy was not directly related to content then that may be another issue. Chillum 00:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "neutral reasoning". All reasoning is biased. The NPOV policy itself is biased and based on biased reasoning, since it demands inclusion of all relevant views, while the views themselves often would rather like to see themselves being described as the only ones. But that does not mean that the NPOV policy is wrong. --rtc (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chillum -- it is deeply troubling to me that some folks (rtc isn't the only one) seem to think that the role of WP is to actively interfere with the field of psychology because they personally don't think psychological testing is a good thing (however one defines good). If WP is supposed to be a neutral cataloguer of knowledge, then that POV has no place on it. I strongly disagree with this policy (no surprise there), for the reasons that Faustian and others have explained, but if you're going to insist upon taking this strong active stance against the professional community, you should at least make it clear that you're doing it for some vaguely defensible reasons. Of course, I don't think it would stop a decent tort attorney either. There's ample evidence that the warnings about the possible consequences have been provided.

Another clarification: "test scoring" would absolutely include information about how items on tests are judged. Many psychological tests have open response forms, and the manuals explain criteria and principles by which answers are judged. Much of the stuff currently posted on the Rorschach page falls into that category, but it's by no means even remotely limited to the Rorschach. And it does apply even to information that can be found in the research literature or professional books. The way things often work in test development is that an item type starts its life in research projects, which, by their nature, are published in the professional literature. After reliability and validity for that item type is initially established in the academic world, then other academics and/or test companies pick up the item types and incorporate them into new editions of their tests. So it's not an appropriate interpretation of the state of things to say, "I saw this in a journal article, therefore no one really cares if anyone knows about it." Mirafra (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am continually amazed at what I am finding on wikipedia. RTC let me be very clear. Almost all of the widely used tests are incredibly valid and clinically useful. For example, lets say a relative suffered a head injury. An MRI can tell you where a lesion might be and how extensive the damage is, but it can do nothing about outlining how their abilities have been impacted. That's where a psychological/neuropsychological battery of tests would come in. Recommendations would be made, treatment outlined, etc. They assist in diagnosing a kid with learning disabilities, autism, and other conditions. Many of these tests are used in the school system to help kids become eligible for services; or for the brain injured to receive services. They are incredibly valuable in a large variety of environments. The most commonly used tests have undergone vigorous reliability and validity studies, and are NOT inaccurate. Yes, someone without proper training may look at the results and make faulty conclusions, and that is why so much schooling is required. But most of these tests measure exactly what they were designed to measure (and an evaluation battery might consist of giving 4-8 hours worth of tests depending upon the referral question). However, if your goals of having the world exposed to them all - well, they may very well simply begin measuring the duration of time someone spent reading a wikipedia "cheat sheet" before their testing battery. This may well not directly affect you now, maybe not next year. But what if a relative has some of the indications of dyslexia or suffers a brain injury. Being able to come to a clear diagnosis, in addition to being able to catalog their cognitive strengths and weaknesses depends largely on these very tests (and James - since you so often that the brain injured simply won't be able to do well on these tests regardless - there are frequently cases of mild cognitive injury, like concussion, where they do well on global measures, but struggle, for example, on measures of executive functioning - usually very sublte deficits not picked up by our current imaging technology). I don't speak for Mifrafa or Faustin or Vannin, but I acknowledge that we really can't stop you guys from doing what you're doing. All I ask is that you at least consider the ramifications down the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 12 August 2009

Only theoretical arguments no more or less valid than saying that the inclusion of this information on Wikipedia will promote people to become psychologists and thus increasing resources available to said relative with the concussion. Adding this information is in no way a cheat sheet. We have much university level science included in other areas and I continually ask myself why not this one?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, because the other university level science is not directly harmful as is placing questions and answers to tests whose use helps people? Of course what you are placing online is an online cheat sheet: [3] "A document, especially a sheet of paper, containing information, such as test answers, used for cheating."Faustian (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is psychology is different than all other sciences and thus needs an exception to the rule of free and open discussion that should take place?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop equating "free and open discussion" with giving away test questions and answers. Because this is what this is all about - the actual questions (test stimuli) and answers to psychological tests. All other info is great, and nobody is calling for suppressing any other sort of info whatsoever. Do other sciences use tests that people take and that won't work if the people taking them know the answers and questions in advance?Faustian (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James, for example, the information posted on the Wisconsin is entirely a CHEAT SHEET! If a patient reads it before hand is administered the test tomorrow or next year, there is NO WAY that they make perseverative errors or have any difficulty figuring out what to do. The test is not hard, but it requires one to be able to shift set. If they know the "sets" beforehand, viola - no problems, even if they have a mild to moderate head injury. You mention psychology needing some type of exception, but with that reasoning, why not post the SAT online, why not post the MCAT, LSAT, GMAT. It is the EXACT same principle. We cannot accurately measure what a test is known to measure if the test is out. We don't call it "suppression" when the fourth grade teacher keeps the math test "secret" from the children until the test day. Again, exact same situation. The test taker gets to see the test, and afterward is explained the purpose and meaning of the test (just as the fourth grade student receives feedback about their performance). What would happen if the MCAT or GRE test items were released? Wouldn't universities suffer some consequences for example? As Faustian has pointed out, nobody is stopping anyone from talking about the tests - I personally want people to understand what they are about and demystify what it is we do. However, there are certain sensitive aspects that keep the test novel; and in many cases, like the Wisconsin and other measures of memory and executive functioning, IT IS novelty of the situation that makes the test meaningful. How much of the information one can or can't recall on a memory test should be a measure of memory, not of how much prior exposure one had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now, unless it is an open book test then almost any test can be spoiled if the person has access to Wikipedia. Chillum 04:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum, there's a difference, however. A memory test may have someone listen to a story, and while that person may not have "open book" access to the story beforehand, they likely will remember a few more words than they would have otherwise if they had seen it before; which would change their score and possibly alter their overall cognitive profile. Just as a fourth grader would like to know a test beforehand, there are reasons why some would want to know psychological/neuropsychological test items beforehand. A neutral example I have used before includes mild head injury, where the problems may not be obvious to the casual observer. For that person, their global abilities are intact, but they may struggle on specific memory measures or problem-solving tests. If that person were, for example, a pilot, athlete, or anyone wanting to be cleared for work or athletic performance (and remember, some work, such as being a pilot, involves being cognitively able) - they may wish to gain a "benefit" from knowing some of what they may see beforehand. And in those circumstances, we really hope we measure real performance and not performance impacted by prior exposure. Does that make sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.Faustian (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure Wikipedia does contain all the info required to answer all the questions on the MCAT, SAT.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But not in "cheat sheet" format, all nicely placed, with instructions and all, in one place. And most certainly not the ACTUAL TEST QUESTIONS THEMSELVES! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And having "information" made available is far different from having the test key. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but until you show me conclusive evidence that pre-knowledge of the images is actually harmful (leaving aside the uncertainty of the usability of the test in the first place), and until we break some form of policy here, or law in the place where our servers are held, then you don't really have a leg to stand on. The issue on the harm of knowing this test is far from clear, and only supported by reasonably few people on this encyclopaedia. You are suggesting loads of hypothetical situations, but not facts backed up by sources. These images are available all over the internet, in publications, and so if you wanted to know the "answers" to the "test", it's just as easy to look on Wikipedia as it is elsewhere. We have a medical disclaimer stating that the use of the information published here is done so at your own risk, and that stands for medical testing information.

As for the issue with the analogy of a school test, I find that highly irrelevant. In my eyes, a school test such as the maths test, or the MCAT etc. noted above are all likely to change, they are edited each time the test is taken to keep it fresh and updated, so that no one can cheat quite as easily on the test. This test is different, it consists of 10 images which do not change, and the diagnosis which is made after is highly subjective to the answers made. As SteveBaker has noted on the RfC talk page, if industry professionals didn't want this test to be public, they should have done something about creating a new set of images after the copyright ran out. New sets can be compared to old sets, and the problem can be solved that way. Instead, the industry did nothing, suggesting that they don't care about the secrecy as much as you're making out. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 10:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Making the questions and answers to psychological tests publicly available compromises psychologists' abilities to assess the learning problem of a student, the memory problem of an older adult or the depression experienced by a teenager" Canadian Psychological Association on Publication and Dissemination of Psychological Tests, August, 2009. If you want an actual source. This type of reference is frequently used in articles in Wiki. It is a clear, referenced statement about harm. --Vannin (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but any empirical evidence? We already know the opinion of many members of the psychological community.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a silly argument, sorry. Is there is an empirical study that shows that using broken MRI equipment results in harm to the people using it? Does that mean its okay to break MRI equipment and then state, "show me the evidence" when professionals ask, "please don't break the equipment because doing so is harmful"?Faustian (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except apparently everyone agrees that breaking medical equipment is harmful; no evidence needs to be showed, because there isn't anyone asking for any. That's very hardly the case here. --LjL (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medical equipment can't be broken by wikipedia. But tests can be broken. And the breakers are the ones asking, "where's the evidence?". There is planty of evidence that the tests are useful. If you don't like the Rorschach, the one ones being broken such as the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task have no controversy about them whatsoever.Faustian (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, medical equipment can't be borken by Wikipedia, so there's no reason to discuss that on Wikipedia and ask for evidence about it. There's a lot of reasons to do that about psychological tests, however, and "you shouldn't be asking for evidence because it's obvious" is not a good retort to someone asking for evidence relevant to Wikipedia, on Wikipedia.

Not that I personally think this evidence would change anything, but apparently others do. --LjL (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of evidence that the tests work. The argument of "show me the evidence" that screwing them up is harmful is akin to showing the evidence that using a broken MRI is harmful.Faustian (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But as you well know that is not the evidence that is being requested. --LjL (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Medical equipment can't be broken by wikipedia. But tests can be broken." That's because the tests are broken, while the medical equipment isn't – at least not in this regard. --rtc (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your empty claim that tests such as the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task are "broken." Someone else using your logic can claim that MRIs are witchcraft or whatever ("roken") and that therefore breaking them is no big deal because they were broken to begin with.Faustian (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I claim that the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task is broken? Has publishing the details of the test on Wikipedia made it invalid? Why should MRIs be broken according to my logic? Do they stop working for someone who has read how they work? You seem to be confusing manipulating some test or apparatus used on a testee and "manipulating" the testee himself. --rtc (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't see the word "harm" in the statement you quoted. --rtc (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reread the first paragraph in this section. The harm part if bolded. With respect to Vannin's quote, apparently you don't consider the fact that compromising the ability to assess learning problems, memory problems, and depression is harmful. Why?Faustian (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the fact that it is not harmful? Do we agree that it's Vannin who is making the interpretation of something being harmful, not the quote he is giving? --rtc (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You ignored the first part of my statement. As for your comment above - so according to you it is a fact that compromising the ability to assess learning problems, memory problems, and depression is not harmful. Thanks for sharing your opinion.Faustian (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm... no? The actual quote being given states verbatim that "Disclosure of secure testing materials [...] imposes very concrete harm to the general public". I don't think that statement should decide anything for Wikipedia, but it's definitely pretty clear. --LjL (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it uses a different notion of harm than Faustian. Faustian suggests that harm is done to individuals; those individuals who do not "benefit" from a "correct" diagnosis and thus are treated incorrectly or not at all, or whatever. The quotation instead uses the abstract metaphor of "concrete (sic) harm to the general public". Of course, what they want to say, is not that real harm is done to anyone, but that elimination of some of their beloved, but apparently broken methods would be against abstract values they seem to think are desirable. --rtc (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point rtc it says nothing about harm.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See above.Faustian (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is OR to state theoretical harm as this is not the wording used by the source material. You can put in that the organization is claiming harm, that seems appropriate. And if JMH does not want input why did he mention this page in the first place?--Vannin (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unilaterally changing the original poster's statements isn't really "input". There is a talk page for a reason. --LjL (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just paraphrased the statement from the APA, CPA etc were they do not provide any evidence.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You changed what they said to something much milder than what they actually said.Faustian (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The psychologists here take a must more severe stance than that in these guidelines and do so at times in an unethical manner. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point on the MRI. Whole body MRI when used as screening actually increase harm.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is abundantly clear by how common these images are on the Internet that the test is already as damaged as it is going to get from the publishing of these images. The exposure of this material has reached the saturation point and any damage to the test should be referred to in the past tense as it has been fully exposed for years now.

The problem is not Wikipedia, the problem is a future where the Internet makes previously obscure information available to everyone, the problem is the age of information. You cannot change this no matter how much you complain. Pretending that this already existing damage will be lessened if we don't show the images here is not based in reason. Chillum 21:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well a few theoretical people may be damaged by the public availability of this information ALL of humanity is harmed by the attempts to suppress scientific knowledge. What the psychologists are attempting to do is unethical.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again, labelling test answers and test questions - the only specific pieces of information which we seek to suppress - as "scientific knowledge." You cling to those two words like Republicans prior to the Iraq war clinged to "freedom." Please, be honest and call it what it is. The test items and answers. Your sentence should read "Well a few theoretical people may be damaged by the public availability of this information ALL of humanity is harmed by the attempts to suppress cheat sheets to tests, test items and test answers. What the psychologists are attempting to do is unethical." Of course, properly worded, your claim sounds silly (because it is), which is why you conceal it with the lofty inaccurate words "scientific knowledge." That's why although the APA which is quite clear and specific with respect to the type of information that ought to be restricted [4]- "Disclosure of secure testing materials (e.g., test items, test scoring, or test protocols) to unqualified persons may decrease the test's validity. " you choose to mislead others by replacing those specific words with "scientific knowledge."05:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A few theoretical people may already be damaged by the public availability of this information... Past tense. Chillum 21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James, you made mention on my talk page that we should assume "good faith" amongst one another. How am I or others to assume good faith when you make a comment that "what the psychologists are attempting to do is unethical?" It's like talking out of both sides of your mouth. And in making such a statement that all of psychology is unethical because we wish to do right by our patients, get them the services they need, etc. I took that this page was about more than just the Rorschach and I am speaking under such as assumption, as others have lumped other undisputably valid and well-respected measures in this whole "suppression" argument. By stating that a whole profession is "unethical," in addition to major health organizations, you are making some rather big leaps, no? And you keep asking "where is the evidence" that publishing tests online is harmful; well have you asked the converse, where is the evidence that it is not. Please do not answer in glib one sentence fashion, expound a bit, please.

You are right: Not all psychologists are attempting to suppress scientific knowledge. 'How am I or others to assume good faith when you make a comment that "what the psychologists are attempting to do is unethical?"' Judging some attempt to do something as unethical does not imply claiming that it was done in bad faith. I can suppress scientific knowledge with the best and honest intentions, yet what I do can be objectively unethical. But we shouldn't be too moral about such things. Psychoanalysis has to learn that security by obscurity does not work, and that snake oil methods that rely on this principle will become discredited quickly, just as the Rorschach test already has been for ages in many countries. Psychoanalysts should not be complaining about the method to be refuted by reality, but they should be working on methods that actually work – that is, that work even if the details are known to the testee. For me, it is a basic ethical requirement that patients are able to completely understand what is being done to them before it is done to them. If not, we cannot speak of informed consent to a diagnosis or treatment. The APA says that "Development and refinement of items and norms for individual intelligence tests, personality assessment techniques, and achievement tests often require many years of research and considerable effort and expense. Improper disclosure of test items or other test materials also may result in damage to those parties which have developed or have ownership in the test and possibly result in breach of contract claims against psychologists who violate the terms of their test purchase or lease agreements."[5] It seems as if the APA is using the weak claim of "require many years of research and considerable effort and expense" as an excuse for questionable policies designed to protect scientifically untenable methods from public inspection and criticism that can only be applied to a patient who does not understand before having to give his consent. And given that the Rorschach test has been around for ages, and nothing into this direction seems to have been developed, it's clear that the only thing such policies do is hinder the progress of science and the development of newer and better methods. --rtc (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RTC, you are now referring to "psychoanalysis?" Most mental health professionals and psychologists no longer use this in treatment (most do not), and it is not involved in any test battery (even the Rorschach is not scored or interpretted in a psychoanalytic manner). As I said, I was talking about more than the Rorschach. Are you calling achievement tests (which are developed by psychologists) and neuropsychological tests "snake oil?" You are using the term "psychoanalysts" when discussing these things; few psychologists consider themselves "psychoanalsysts." The tests are based on psychometric theories, statistical techniques. I'm afraid you are misunderstanding my questions/concerns. None of this has anything to do with "psychoanalysis;" and I don't see anyone clinging to Freud here. Many of these tests are brain-based, cognitive measures for example. I mean no harm when I state that you are misunderstanding some of our statements; but your insistence on using the term "psychoanalysts" suggests that some more reading on the topic may be warranted to clarify some misperceptions. Takamine45 (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychoanalysis is not merely a method, it is also a general theory and position. The Rorschach test is a psychoanalytical method, developed with psychoanalytic theories in the back Rorschach's mind. Rorschach was an adherent of Freud. So if you are claiming that the Rorschach test has nothing to do with psychoanalysis, that would suggest rather that some more reading on the topic may be needed on your side. It does not matter to me whether some test is an achievement test or a neuropsychological test: From a scientific point of view, if the testee can manipulate it given prior knowledge on how the test works, it's snake oil. I agree, though, that psychology is not the same as psychoanalysis and psychology has developed many methods independent from psychonalaysis, but I was referring specifically to the Rorschach test here, and, on the other hand, psychology has developed quite some snake oil methods, too, of course. Especially ones based on "measurement" and "psychometric theories". The very notions of measurement and metrics themselves are pseudoscientific ones, because they imply the existence of inductive reasoning ("I have 'measured' value X for Y, hence, Y will always have the value Y if I measure it" or, it's statistical version "I have 'measured' value X for Y in 48% of the cases, hence, Y will always have the value Y in 48% of the cases if I measure it"), a claim which is in conflict with simple facts of basic logic. It's not surprising that such methods are unreliable if such invalid reasoning is used in their development. PS: Please stop using phrases like "I mean no harm when I state that you are misunderstanding some of our statements", you are not talking to a patient. --rtc (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rtc, this page is about psychological tests in general, not just the Rorschach. James wants to put the questions and answers to all of them on wikipedia and he's already put test stimuli for other tests on the wikipedia pages about those tests. That being said, what you describe as measurement and psychometric theories is not what is done in psychology. Take a basic statistics course or read up on psychometrics. Your example is nonsense, nobody does what you claim they do. But thanks for showing that you have a philosophical issue against psychological tests and thus are here to try to damage them in order to further your personal hang-up. This is your real agenda. Now let's look at your statement "if the testee can manipulate it given prior knowledge on how the test works, it's snake oil." An interesting belief. I know that a thermometer works by measuring the temperature at the point of the thermometer. Therefore I can manipulate the results by holding the thermometer's point to a light bulb to increase the temperature or in a refrigerator to decreaseit. According to your logic, the thermometer is therefore snake oil. Likewise, if I have the questions and answers to the medical licensing exam prior to the exam, I can manipulate the results of that exam in order to improve my score. It is therefore also snake oil according to your logic. If I know how the Wisconsin card sorting test works I can manipulate my results in order to get a normal score despite having brain injury. Also snake oil, according to your logic. Etc. etc. Sorry, as long as research shows that there is a strong enough relationship between something tested and the test result (i.e., brain damage, thought disorder, etc.) that the results of the test are unlikely to be caused by chance, its a valid test. As for the Rorschach and psychoanalysis - its development is irrelevent as long as the results are validated, which they are. Rejecting every idea or measure for the reason that it can be traced back in some way to Freud because many of Freud's ideas were incorrect or because you don't like him is somewhat akin to rejecting everything tracable to Newton because the man was an alchemist and saw himself primarily as one: [6]. Stick to the data, not your personal theory or ideology. And guess what - while a small minority complain about the Rorschach, even that minority states that it is not worthless and that it has its uses (specifically, for detecting thought disorder and intelligence).Faustian (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"James wants to put the questions and answers to all of them on wikipedia and he's already put test stimuli for other tests on the wikipedia pages about those tests." That's a very good approach. "But thanks for showing that you have a philosophical issue against psychological tests and thus are here to try to damage them in order to further your personal hang-up. This is your real agenda." I do not have a (merely) "philosophical" (that is, irrelevant) issue with the test, but a real, ethical, scientific, encyclopedic etc. issue. I never tried to hide that fact, by the way. It is not me who "damages" anything, it is the tests themselves that are damaged and that psychologists are eager to protect from refutation. You are doing as if it's my fault that they are snake oil, that's ridiculous! Please don't shoot the messenger. "That being said, what you describe as measurement and psychometric theories is not what is done in psychology. Take a basic statistics course or read up on psychometrics. Your example is nonsense, nobody does what you claim they do." Then what do they do? I'm sorry, but such answers do not help us. I am not talking about the details of statistics, but what the whole framework in which it is used come down to: You "measure" a limited number of cases and then assume that the statistical distribution you "measured" holds in general. Do you deny that this is so? "I know that a thermometer works by measuring the temperature at the point of the thermometer. Therefore I can manipulate the results by holding the thermometer's point to a light bulb to increase the temperature or in a refrigerator to decreaseit." But did you manipulate anything? The thermometer has displayed the correct termperature at the place where you put it, after all. "According to your logic, the thermometer is therefore snake oil." most certainly not. But if you see this as manipulation, according to your logic, shouldn't the description of how thermometers work be banned? "Likewise, if I have the questions and answers to the medical licensing exam prior to the exam, I can manipulate the results of that exam in order to improve my score. It is therefore also snake oil according to your logic." You can design an exam in such a way that it does not help you if you know the answers in advance. "If I know how the Wisconsin card sorting test works I can manipulate my results in order to get a normal score despite having brain injury. Also snake oil, according to your logic." If I can do that, then it's snake oil. However, I have read the article about the sorting test and I doubt it can be manipulated that way. After all, the article is very clear on how the test works. Has this made the test invalid? "Sorry, as long as research shows" Again you are making the pseudoscientific claim that research shows anything. "that there is a strong enough relationship between something tested and the test result (i.e., brain damage, thought disorder, etc.) that the results of the test are unlikely to be caused by chance, its a valid test" Then call it valid, but if it is snake oil, it should not be used and its details should be disclosed. "Rejecting every idea or measure for the reason that it can be traced back in some way to Freud because many of Freud's ideas" I did not use this reasoning. "Stick to the data, not your personal theory or ideology." My "personal theory" tells me that no such thing as data exists. "And guess what - while a small minority complain about the Rorschach, even that minority states that it is not worthless and that it has its uses (specifically, for detecting thought disorder and intelligence)" See, first of all, nobody disputes that you can use the Rorschach test for other purposes, second, it's wrong that it's only a small minority opposing it – the test is mainly discredited and has been banned in many countries for ages (I am repeating myself). --rtc (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so now I see you're a philospher, and seemingly a follower of Karl Popper: [7] and you are basically coming at this with sort of a dogmatic religious purpose, or at least a thought experiment. Fascinating exercise. You mentioned that "Popper was from the very beginning a stark opponent of naturalism, scientific method, evidence-based science, support for theories, probability of theories and anything else put forward to give good reasons for or to justify belief in scientific theories." Do you hold these beliefs as well? I'd like to know where you're coming from.Faustian (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a philosopher. We Popperians do not "hold beliefs" and most certainly have no "dogmatic religous purposes", but I agree with Popper. But Wikipedia is not the place to talk about ourselves. --rtc (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're really going off topic here folks, and heading into the area of picking flaws with your opponent. Let's try and stick to the matter at hand. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 16:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree especially if there are disputes between health organizations as to the usefulness to the procedure in question. Also what the health organization is actually saying may be open to debate. For example, what does the "avoid release of test materials into the public domain" the British Psychological Society and "consistent with law" the American Psychological Association talk about mean? Does it mean that it is ethical to reveal portions of a test that are in the public domain? It certainly can be read that way.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Consistent with law" means, "If a judge orders you to release it, you release it -- you don't have to go to jail to protect test security." Mirafra (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]