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 i
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.
Insufficient. Being rude isn't going to win converts to the cause.
In a message dated 8/4/2009 8:50:38 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arrom...@rahul.net writes:
Of what? Complaints not based on money? Read the discussion page,
sheesh.
___
Wi
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 wjhon...@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 h
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.
S
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 hypothe
2009/8/2 Ken Arromdee :
> 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, 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'
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
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-le
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 p
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 th
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
"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 d
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 si
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Ray Saintonge 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
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
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:22 AM, 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 critici
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 cont
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, 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 sh
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, b
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Ken Arromdee 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 /some
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 i
-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
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
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
si
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.
-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 Consortiu
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Ken Arromdee 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, m
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 th
2009/7/30 Ken Arromdee :
> 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 in
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.
> 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 unceremon
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 unceremoniou
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.
>>
>>
No, it puts them in league with everyone else that relies on something
that hasn't been changed in nearly a century.
~Amory
> Does this dispute put us in league with the Scientologists?
>
> Ec
--
~A
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedi
2009/7/29 Ken Arromdee :
> 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
>> >
<>
Please report to Re-education Camp #41
-Original Message-
From: Ray Saintonge
To: English Wikipedia
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 t
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 th
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 leag
2009/7/29 Ken Arromdee :
> 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
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 l
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
>
LOL. Can you say "scapegoat"?
biblio
--- On Tue, 7/28/09, Gwern Branwen wrote:
From: Gwern Branwen
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Rorschach wars continue
To: "English Wikipedia"
Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2009, 9:58 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/technology/internet/29inkblot.
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 a
46 matches
Mail list logo
