Or perhaps you are misunderstand what I requested.
Being flip and hyperbolic isn't an effective way to argue.
I am not stating that *some* psychologists aren't saying that publishing
the (effective) answer-sheet is harmful.
I am stating that Psychologists are not saying this. That is, where is
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Insufficient. Being rude isn't going to win converts to the cause.
You're making a highly disingenuous request. Professionals who want the
pictures removed don't claim it's because of money. They give other reasons,
which have already been repeated.
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
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
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
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
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
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
2009/8/2 Ken Arromdee arrom...@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 Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@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
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
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Ray Saintongesainto...@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
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
Harm is gray, not black and white. Almost anything we publish could
*cause harm* in some way.
However the Rorschach images are not BLPs. I'm sure publishing details to
day about President Wilson's adultery might cause harm to his descendents
if any, but it's already been published in a
-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
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
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Ken Arromdeearrom...@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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
2009/7/30 Ken Arromdee arrom...@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
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, geni wrote:
You can't delete images with normal editing abilities and the initial
clash as it were was on commons.
You can remove them from articles.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Ken Arromdeearrom...@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
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:
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
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
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.
___
WikiEN-l mailing
2009/7/29 Ken Arromdee arrom...@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
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
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
Does this dispute put us in league with the Scientologists?
Please report to Re-education Camp #41
-Original Message-
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 3:16 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rorschach wars
2009/7/29 Ken Arromdee arrom...@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
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
LOL. Can you say scapegoat?
biblio
--- On Tue, 7/28/09, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Rorschach wars continue
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2009, 9:58 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07
39 matches
Mail list logo
