

Your Rights Online: Wikipedia Debates Rorschach Censorship - mgenzel
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/14/1829231/Wikipedia-Debates-Rorschach-Censorship?from=rss

======
anigbrowl
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and
diversion, without the conversation ending in a conspiracy against the public,
or in some contrivance to raise prices."

------
miguelpais
It marvels me how can psychologists get anything out of that. Most of the
cards just look like butterflies.

Anyway, if the cards are public there is no reason for them not to be at
wikipedia. I also didn't know the images were always the same.

~~~
anigbrowl
The sad part is that that the arguers against all insist the cards themselves
are sacred, rather than the business of studying the patient's process in
responding to the cards.

To my mind this is pure pseudoscience. You might as well rely on some
automated tarot card reading (versus using the random arrangement of cards as
a brainstorming tool to get a new insight into some life situation).

edit: to clarify, I think there's nothing wrong with using inkblots as a
diagnostic tool. It's the idea that one can only usefully score these
particular inkblots that seems pseudoscientific to me.

~~~
paulgb
It's not so much that the cards are inherently sacred, but that the scoring
systems are designed around the 10 cards. Anyone could splotch some ink on
paper, but coming up with a scoring system is another matter.

But yeah, it does seem pseudoscientific.

------
yters
Awh, was hoping for censorship debates about all the dirty pictures the images
contain. Then at least it would have been funny.

