http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/technology/internet/29inkblot.html
"Has Wikipedia Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet?"
' Yet in the last few months, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia has been engulfed in a furious debate involving psychologists who are angry that the 10 original Rorschach plates are reproduced online, along with common responses for each. For them, the Wikipedia page is the equivalent of posting an answer sheet to next year’s SAT.
They are pitted against the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia’s users, who share the site’s “free culture” ethos, which opposes the suppression of information that it is legal to publish. (Because the Rorschach plates were created nearly 90 years ago, they have lost their copyright protection in the United States.)' ... 'Trudi Finger, a spokeswoman for Hogrefe & Huber Publishing, the German company that bought an early publisher of Hermann Rorschach’s book, said in an e-mail message last week: “We are assessing legal steps against Wikimedia,” referring to the foundation that runs the Wikipedia sites. Skip to next paragraph
“It is therefore unbelievably reckless and even cynical of Wikipedia,” she said, “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.’ ”
Mike Godwin, the general counsel at Wikimedia, hardly sounded concerned, saying he “had to laugh a bit” at the legal and ethical arguments made in the statement from Hogrefe.
Hogrefe licenses a number of companies in the United States to sell the plates along with interpretative material. One such distributor, Western Psychological Services, sells the plates themselves for $110 and a larger kit for $185.'
I'm starting to think maybe the Signpost or Foundation should start soliciting donations from Noam Cohen - he only ever seems to write based on them...
Gwern Branwen wrote:
Trudi Finger, a spokeswoman for Hogrefe & Huber Publishing, the German company that bought an early publisher of Hermann Rorschach’s book, said in an e-mail message last week: “We are assessing legal steps against Wikimedia,” referring to the foundation that runs the Wikipedia sites.
I would always take a statement like that as face-saving. She likely didn't have a clue about the legal aspects of the matter. Everybody should be allowed the time to consult with counsel, even if all that counsel will say is to confirm our view. Taking a position either way without counsel could be viewed as irresponsible.
Ec
It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is harmful are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without even a WP:OFFICE.
2009/7/29 Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is harmful are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without even a WP:OFFICE.
Not really. In this case there are a number editors who've spent significant amounts of time arguing for their inclusion and are not likely to react to well to any attempted removal.
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, geni wrote:
It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is harmful are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without even a WP:OFFICE.
Not really. In this case there are a number editors who've spent significant amounts of time arguing for their inclusion and are not likely to react to well to any attempted removal.
If the New York Times had claimed the information is harmful, Jimbo would have deleted the information much earlier--no editor would have gotten a *chance* to spend a significant amount of time defending it. You don't get editors investing a lot of time if you make the deletion a fait accompli before a lot of time has passed.
2009/7/29 Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, geni wrote:
It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is harmful are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without even a WP:OFFICE.
Not really. In this case there are a number editors who've spent significant amounts of time arguing for their inclusion and are not likely to react to well to any attempted removal.
If the New York Times had claimed the information is harmful, Jimbo would have deleted the information much earlier--no editor would have gotten a *chance* to spend a significant amount of time defending it. You don't get editors investing a lot of time if you make the deletion a fait accompli before a lot of time has passed.
Jimbo isn't a commons admin.
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, geni wrote:
It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is harmful are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without even a WP:OFFICE.
Not really. In this case there are a number editors who've spent significant amounts of time arguing for their inclusion and are not likely to react to well to any attempted removal.
If the New York Times had claimed the information is harmful, Jimbo would have deleted the information much earlier--no editor would have gotten a *chance* to spend a significant amount of time defending it. You don't get editors investing a lot of time if you make the deletion a fait accompli before a lot of time has passed.
Jimbo isn't a commons admin.
Huh? Did I ever say he was?
The New York Times reporter information was, as far as I know, deleted using normal user editing abilities. (Which did not prevent it from becoming a fait accompli.)
2009/7/30 Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
Huh? Did I ever say he was?
The New York Times reporter information was, as far as I know, deleted using normal user editing abilities. (Which did not prevent it from becoming a fait accompli.)
You can't delete images with normal editing abilities and the initial clash as it were was on commons.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Ken Arromdeearromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Huh? Did I ever say he was?
The New York Times reporter information was, as far as I know, deleted using normal user editing abilities. (Which did not prevent it from becoming a fait accompli.)
And the deletion backed up with protection, mind you: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&...
# 11:57, 20 June 2009 Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) changed protection level for "David S. Rohde" [move=sysop] (expires 14:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)) (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/world/asia/21talibancnd.html?_r=2&hp) (hist) # 10:04, 14 March 2009 Rjd0060 (talk | contribs) protected David S. Rohde [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 14:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 14:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)) (per the previous protections. continued additions of unsourced/poorly sourced material. this is a blp and such must be avoided. see OTRS Ticket:2008111310026387 for further details) (hist)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Has anyone pointed out to these people that the plates (and the "answers") are probably available elsewhere on the Internet and only need a simple Google Images search to bring them forth? Why don't the psychologists try suing World Wide Web Consortium, for that matter, because they help distribute these "answers?" - -- - --FastLizard4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FastLizard4 | http://scalar.cluenet.org/~fastlizard4/)
Gwern Branwen wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Ken Arromdeearromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Huh? Did I ever say he was?
The New York Times reporter information was, as far as I know, deleted using normal user editing abilities. (Which did not prevent it from becoming a fait accompli.)
And the deletion backed up with protection, mind you: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&...
# 11:57, 20 June 2009 Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) changed protection level for "David S. Rohde" [move=sysop] (expires 14:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)) (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/world/asia/21talibancnd.html?_r=2&hp) (hist) # 10:04, 14 March 2009 Rjd0060 (talk | contribs) protected David S. Rohde [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 14:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 14:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)) (per the previous protections. continued additions of unsourced/poorly sourced material. this is a blp and such must be avoided. see OTRS Ticket:2008111310026387 for further details) (hist)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, FastLizard4 wrote:
Has anyone pointed out to these people that the plates (and the "answers") are probably available elsewhere on the Internet and only need a simple Google Images search to bring them forth?
No, it's been discussed for months and nobody's thought of this simple idea before.
(Translation: Of course it's been thought of before. It's also been replied to before. You are nowhere near the first person who's thought of this, and it's nowhere near the ironclad final argument you seem to think it is.)
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Gwern Branwen wrote:
The New York Times reporter information was, as far as I know, deleted using normal user editing abilities. Â (Which did not prevent it from becoming a fait accompli.)
And the deletion backed up with protection, mind you: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&...
I think Jimbo would have been able to do the same thing, or something similarly irreversible by a normal user, for the Rorschach article.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is harmful are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without even a WP:OFFICE.
Does this dispute put us in league with the Scientologists?
Ec
<<Does this dispute put us in league with the Scientologists?>>
Please report to Re-education Camp #41
-----Original Message----- From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 3:16 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rorschach wars continue
Ken Arromdee wrote:
It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is
harmful
are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the
New
York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without even
a
WP:OFFICE.
Does this dispute put us in league with the Scientologists?
Ec
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is harmful are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without even a WP:OFFICE.
Does this dispute put us in league with the Scientologists?
On this issue, the Scientologists can swing either way.
They can go with the old doctrine of "an enemy of my enemy is my friend", or they can figure: "Okay, we hate the psychologists and all, but we gotta stand shoulder to shoulder with them, when it comes to revealing trade secrets. We do want Xenu to only be revealed for those who are ready for it?"
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is harmful are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without even a WP:OFFICE.
Does this dispute put us in league with the Scientologists?
On this issue, the Scientologists can swing either way.
Far be it from me to impugn the reputation of Scientologists for private activities at church meetings.
They can go with the old doctrine of "an enemy of my enemy is my friend", or they can figure: "Okay, we hate the psychologists and all, but we gotta stand shoulder to shoulder with them, when it comes to revealing trade secrets. We do want Xenu to only be revealed for those who are ready for it?"
Beware of the psychologist with a crystal ball on his desk.
Ec
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is harmful are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without even a WP:OFFICE.
Does this dispute put us in league with the Scientologists?
On this issue, the Scientologists can swing either way.
on 7/30/09 12:13 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Far be it from me to impugn the reputation of Scientologists for private activities at church meetings.
They can go with the old doctrine of "an enemy of my enemy is my friend", or they can figure: "Okay, we hate the psychologists and all, but we gotta stand shoulder to shoulder with them, when it comes to revealing trade secrets. We do want Xenu to only be revealed for those who are ready for it?"
Beware of the psychologist with a crystal ball on his desk.
Awww, Ray! They've given away Rorschach; did you have to give that away too? :-)
Marc
So, can someone fill me in on why we're laughing at this? From the article:
---- To psychologists, to render the Rorschach test meaningless would be a particularly painful development because there has been so much research conducted — tens of thousands of papers, by Dr. Smith’s estimate — to try to link a patient’s responses to certain psychological conditions. Yes, new inkblots could be used, these advocates concede, but those blots would not have had the research — “the normative data,” in the language of researchers — that allows the answers to be put into a larger context. ----
That seems like a pretty reasonable concern to me. To destroy the effectiveness of a test that has that kind of research background to it (tens of thousands of papers!!) doesn't seem like a laughing matter. Maybe it's unavoidable. Maybe it's collateral damage. But the concern that publishing it on Wikipedia is different from publishing it elsewhere on the web seems legitimate.
Steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
The concern is legitimate, if for no other reason than Wikipedia is usually in the top ranks of any Google search. But, Wikipedia is one site out of God-knows-how-many on the Internet, and /someone/ has to take the top search ranking on Google. If it just so happens that that top ranked page has the same information as the Wikipedia article, it's the same problem, the only difference being that the problem is not Wikipedia's.
Of course, all of these problems (any many, many more) could be solved by destroying the Internet, but that wouldn't work too well, would it? - -- - --FastLizard4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FastLizard4 | http://scalar.cluenet.org/~fastlizard4/)
Steve Bennett wrote:
So, can someone fill me in on why we're laughing at this? From the article:
To psychologists, to render the Rorschach test meaningless would be a particularly painful development because there has been so much research conducted — tens of thousands of papers, by Dr. Smith’s estimate — to try to link a patient’s responses to certain psychological conditions. Yes, new inkblots could be used, these advocates concede, but those blots would not have had the research — “the normative data,” in the language of researchers — that allows the answers to be put into a larger context.
That seems like a pretty reasonable concern to me. To destroy the effectiveness of a test that has that kind of research background to it (tens of thousands of papers!!) doesn't seem like a laughing matter. Maybe it's unavoidable. Maybe it's collateral damage. But the concern that publishing it on Wikipedia is different from publishing it elsewhere on the web seems legitimate.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, FastLizard4 wrote:
The concern is legitimate, if for no other reason than Wikipedia is usually in the top ranks of any Google search. But, Wikipedia is one site out of God-knows-how-many on the Internet, and /someone/ has to take the top search ranking on Google. If it just so happens that that top ranked page has the same information as the Wikipedia article, it's the same problem, the only difference being that the problem is not Wikipedia's.
The same argument can be made about any issue which just involves privacy and not even danger to lives. If you search for Brian Peppers on the Internet, you can still find all the information you want; that's not an excuse for Wikipedia to have the article.
Someone else who is thinking of putting the information up can easily think "even if I didn't put it up, Wikipedia would have the top search ranking". You end up with everyone passing the responsibility to everyone else to stop it first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Ken Arromdeearromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, FastLizard4 wrote:
The concern is legitimate, if for no other reason than Wikipedia is usually in the top ranks of any Google search. But, Wikipedia is one site out of God-knows-how-many on the Internet, and /someone/ has to take the top search ranking on Google. If it just so happens that that top ranked page has the same information as the Wikipedia article, it's the same problem, the only difference being that the problem is not Wikipedia's.
The same argument can be made about any issue which just involves privacy and not even danger to lives. If you search for Brian Peppers on the Internet, you can still find all the information you want; that's not an excuse for Wikipedia to have the article.
Someone else who is thinking of putting the information up can easily think "even if I didn't put it up, Wikipedia would have the top search ranking". You end up with everyone passing the responsibility to everyone else to stop it first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility
This is very different from Brian Peppers. The rich body of research on these tests (too much for anyone to easily digest) actually points to the need for a Wikipedia-style summary of the relevant data. It's one thing to say that the general public shouldn't be exposed to that data arbitrarily; it's quite another to say that it should be kept from people who are searching for it (which is how people end up reading the Wikipedia article on it).
One can think of many classes of information where plausible arguments could be made that society would be better of if such-and-such were not widely known. In this case, the argument would be that psychologist (and interested non-patients/non-test-subjects?) should have access to the accumulated data about these tests but those who may be subjected to the tests should not. Maybe that would be good for society, maybe not. But that clashes with core Wikimedia values in ways that tabloid topics of borderline notability do not.
There is no question that the information about the tests is important and valuable knowledge (whether the tests themselves are clinically useful is another matter). In contrast to Brian Peppers, here the argument is that the info should be removed *because* it's important and valuable. So we're being asked to impoverish the commons for the sake of protecting the gatekeeping privileges of professional psychologists, at the expense of interested non-psychologists.
-Sage
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Sage Ross wrote:
This is very different from Brian Peppers. The rich body of research on these tests (too much for anyone to easily digest) actually points to the need for a Wikipedia-style summary of the relevant data. It's one thing to say that the general public shouldn't be exposed to that data arbitrarily; it's quite another to say that it should be kept from people who are searching for it (which is how people end up reading the Wikipedia article on it).
That doesn't seem to be a relevant difference. In both cases, the argument is being made that putting it on Wikipedia isn't causing any harm because there are other places on the Internet where it can be found. That argument stands or fails in both cases. It clearly fails for Peppers.
There is no question that the information about the tests is important and valuable knowledge (whether the tests themselves are clinically useful is another matter). In contrast to Brian Peppers, here the argument is that the info should be removed *because* it's important and valuable.
In both cases, the argument is being made that harm will be caused by people seeing it. (In other words, that it is harmful because it is valuable to the people who use Wikipedia.)
Ken Arromdee wrote:
The same argument can be made about any issue which just involves privacy and not even danger to lives. If you search for Brian Peppers on the Internet, you can still find all the information you want; that's not an excuse for Wikipedia to have the article.
But then neither is it an excuse for not having such an article.
Someone else who is thinking of putting the information up can easily think "even if I didn't put it up, Wikipedia would have the top search ranking". You end up with everyone passing the responsibility to everyone else to stop it first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility
Search ranking should not be a factor in deciding whether to have an article. Higher search ranking will develop after an article is written. The argument from diffusion of responsibility could more easily be about the responsibility for failure to add the material. Diffusion of responsibility is more about situations where harm is clearly being done, as with someone being beaten-up. In our case the harm is ambiguous at best.
Ec
Steve Bennett wrote:
So, can someone fill me in on why we're laughing at this? From the article:
To psychologists, to render the Rorschach test meaningless would be a particularly painful development because there has been so much research conducted — tens of thousands of papers, by Dr. Smith’s estimate — to try to link a patient’s responses to certain psychological conditions. Yes, new inkblots could be used, these advocates concede, but those blots would not have had the research — “the normative data,” in the language of researchers — that allows the answers to be put into a larger context.
That seems like a pretty reasonable concern to me. To destroy the effectiveness of a test that has that kind of research background to it (tens of thousands of papers!!) doesn't seem like a laughing matter. Maybe it's unavoidable. Maybe it's collateral damage. But the concern that publishing it on Wikipedia is different from publishing it elsewhere on the web seems legitimate.
It's good to know that the efforts of the jokesters seeking to remove this material was reported on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)'s National news program last night.
So what if there have been tens of thousands of papers on the Rorschachs! The geocentric universe was impervious to criticism for much longer. If the tests are truly scientific they will be just as scientific when exposed to open criticism. It's not our role to protect the incomes of those psychologists who are in denial about their game of follow-the-leader. NPOV is contrary to such occult practices.
Ec
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Ray Saintonge wrote:
So what if there have been tens of thousands of papers on the Rorschachs! The geocentric universe was impervious to criticism for much longer. If the tests are truly scientific they will be just as scientific when exposed to open criticism. It's not our role to protect the incomes of those psychologists who are in denial about their game of follow-the-leader. NPOV is contrary to such occult practices.
I think that AGF requires that we take the psychologists at their word when they claim that they want the pictures removed because they cause harm, rather than to help their income.
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Ray Saintonge wrote:
So what if there have been tens of thousands of papers on the Rorschachs! The geocentric universe was impervious to criticism for much longer. the incomes of those psychologists who are in denial about their game of follow-the-leader. NPOV is contrary to such occult practices.
Oh... and does this mean that if you were to be convinced that showing the blots does cause harm, you would then support their removal? Or is your position more absolutist, and you don't really care about whether they cause harm or not?
If the tests are truly scientific they will be just as scientific when exposed to open criticism.
You're equivocating on the meaning of "scientific" here--if it means "be more able to properly use them on other people", yes. If it means "be more able to properly use them on himself", no.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Ray Saintonge wrote:
So what if there have been tens of thousands of papers on the Rorschachs! The geocentric universe was impervious to criticism for much longer. the incomes of those psychologists who are in denial about their game of follow-the-leader. NPOV is contrary to such occult practices.
Oh... and does this mean that if you were to be convinced that showing the blots does cause harm, you would then support their removal? Or is your position more absolutist, and you don't really care about whether they cause harm or not?
The harm that they inflict on the self-esteem of psychologists is hardly enough harm to justify such action. Showing that something can cause harm, is quite different than showing that it does. Showing of anything is not a proof except to the person doing the showing; it fails to give equal weight to the people who are showing the exact opposite. Perhaps adding a spoiler warning ;-) : "Do not read the following as it risks providing you with insights into yourself."
If the tests are truly scientific they will be just as scientific when exposed to open criticism.
You're equivocating on the meaning of "scientific" here--if it means "be more able to properly use them on other people", yes. If it means "be more able to properly use them on himself", no.
Whether tests are scientific has nothing to do with whom they are being used on. If I hypothesize that anyone who sees a picture of a duck in one or more of the blots is a quack that hypothesis still needs to be tested. If it turns out that some of them are only Disney fanatics I would need to revise my hypothesis. I don't know enough about the massive literature on the subject to determine whether it is properly scientific.
Ec
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Ray Saintonge wrote:
So what if there have been tens of thousands of papers on the Rorschachs! The geocentric universe was impervious to criticism for much longer. the incomes of those psychologists who are in denial about their game of follow-the-leader. NPOV is contrary to such occult practices.
Oh... and does this mean that if you were to be convinced that showing the blots does cause harm, you would then support their removal? Or is your position more absolutist, and you don't really care about whether they cause harm or not?
The harm that they inflict on the self-esteem of psychologists is hardly enough harm to justify such action. Showing that something can cause harm, is quite different than showing that it does.
That's a strange dodging of the question.
If you were convinced that showing the blots causes harm to potential patients, rather than to psychologists' self-esteem, would you then support the removal of the blots?
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Ray Saintonge wrote:
So what if there have been tens of thousands of papers on the Rorschachs! The geocentric universe was impervious to criticism for much longer. the incomes of those psychologists who are in denial about their game of follow-the-leader. NPOV is contrary to such occult practices.
Oh... and does this mean that if you were to be convinced that showing the blots does cause harm, you would then support their removal? Or is your position more absolutist, and you don't really care about whether they cause harm or not?
The harm that they inflict on the self-esteem of psychologists is hardly enough harm to justify such action. Showing that something can cause harm, is quite different than showing that it does.
That's a strange dodging of the question.
If you were convinced that showing the blots causes harm to potential patients, rather than to psychologists' self-esteem, would you then support the removal of the blots?
The fact is that I'm not convinced of that, so it's pointless to engage in hypotheticals about what I would do if I were.
Ec
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Ray Saintonge wrote:
That's a strange dodging of the question.
If you were convinced that showing the blots causes harm to potential patients, rather than to psychologists' self-esteem, would you then support the removal of the blots?
The fact is that I'm not convinced of that, so it's pointless to engage in hypotheticals about what I would do if I were.
That's a more obvious dodging of the question. You're basically saying "I'm not going to tell you if this argument could possibly be productive", which is fundamentally dishonest.
2009/8/2 Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
That's a more obvious dodging of the question. You're basically saying "I'm not going to tell you if this argument could possibly be productive", which is fundamentally dishonest.
Refusing to answer a hypothetical is hardly dishonest.
- d.
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, David Gerard wrote:
That's a more obvious dodging of the question. Â You're basically saying "I'm not going to tell you if this argument could possibly be productive", which is fundamentally dishonest.
Refusing to answer a hypothetical is hardly dishonest.
The hypothetical is "would convincing you of this actually matter?" In this case, refusing to answer it is. It's equivalent to "are you trolling" or "are you just wasting my time".
I haven't yet seen convincing evidence that "psychologists" are complaining, at least not a sufficent percentage, maybe a few. However I've seen that a for-profit company is complaining since it obviously cuts their income stream if what they had previously licensed is now freely available.
So where is the convincing evidence of that?
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
I haven't yet seen convincing evidence that "psychologists" are complaining, at least not a sufficent percentage, maybe a few. However I've seen that a for-profit company is complaining since it obviously cuts their income stream if what they had previously licensed is now freely available.
So where is the convincing evidence of that?
Of what? Complaints not based on money? Read the discussion page, sheesh.
As far as I can tell the whole money thing is mainly based on the idea that sdince you don't believe their stated reasons, you have to guess at other ones, and the only one you can think of is money.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Ray Saintonge wrote:
So what if there have been tens of thousands of papers on the Rorschachs! The geocentric universe was impervious to criticism for much longer. If the tests are truly scientific they will be just as scientific when exposed to open criticism. It's not our role to protect the incomes of those psychologists who are in denial about their game of follow-the-leader. NPOV is contrary to such occult practices.
I think that AGF requires that we take the psychologists at their word when they claim that they want the pictures removed because they cause harm, rather than to help their income.
Methinks that posting was a smiley facey wanting. I sincerely hope you weren't in dead earnest.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
I think that AGF requires that we take the psychologists at their word when they claim that they want the pictures removed because they cause harm, rather than to help their income.
Methinks that posting was a smiley facey wanting. I sincerely hope you weren't in dead earnest.
What makes you think I wasn't in dead earnest? Because it's obviously silly that someone would accuse psychologists of that? It's nowhere near as silly as lots of other things people say with all seriousness over the Internet. (And for all I know, I could have been talking to a Scientologist, and that's exactly how they think of psychologists.)
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
I think that AGF requires that we take the psychologists at their word when they claim that they want the pictures removed because they cause harm, rather than to help their income.
Methinks that posting was a smiley facey wanting. I sincerely hope you weren't in dead earnest.
What makes you think I wasn't in dead earnest? Because it's obviously silly that someone would accuse psychologists of that? It's nowhere near as silly as lots of other things people say with all seriousness over the Internet.
The major recording companies use DRM technology to save artists from harm, and not to protect their own vested interests. :-)
Ec
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote:
So what if there have been tens of thousands of papers on the Rorschachs! The geocentric universe was impervious to criticism for much longer. If the tests are truly scientific they will be just as scientific when exposed to open criticism. It's not our role to protect the incomes of those psychologists who are in denial about their game of follow-the-leader. NPOV is contrary to such occult practices.
You've missed the point. It's not hard to find if you go back and look for it.
Steve
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Ray Saintongesaintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
So, can someone fill me in on why we're laughing at this? From the article:
That seems like a pretty reasonable concern to me. To destroy the effectiveness of a test that has that kind of research background to it (tens of thousands of papers!!) doesn't seem like a laughing matter. Maybe it's unavoidable. Maybe it's collateral damage. But the concern that publishing it on Wikipedia is different from publishing it elsewhere on the web seems legitimate.
It's good to know that the efforts of the jokesters seeking to remove this material was reported on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)'s National news program last night.
I'm surprised by how popular the article still is. In some ways, our traffic is still light enough to be pushed around significantly by news. http://wikistics.falsikon.de/latest-daily/wikipedia/en/
SJ