Dispute over Rorschach test images, and more
Rorschach test dispute reported
New York Times writer and longtime Wikipedia observer Noam Cohen wrote up a story on a dispute on Rorschach test, which revolves around whether posting the ten original (public domain) inkblot images will cause patients of psychologists to game the test, making it useless. The publisher of Rorschach's work said it was looking into a lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation, about which Mike Godwin, the Foundation's general counsel, seemed unconcerned.[1] The story was picked up widely, with coverage ranging from the straightforward[2] to the mocking.[3][4] The Globe and Mail published an extensive account of the kerfuffle,[5] while Newsweek and Science Daily used the controversy to emphasize that the Rorschach test is not considered particularly effective.[6][7] Discussion among Wikipedians is ongoing.
In brief
- The Wikipedia Academy at the National Institutes of Health (see previous Signpost article) was reported on by The Washington Post, who wrote of one NIH employee who edited his first article as a result of the training.[8] In response, a government watchdog group raised concerns that "the government may impose its issues on the public if it is not vigilant."[9]
- Eric Felten of The Wall Street Journal wrote an opinion piece on the DCoetzee (Wikipedia) – National Portrait Gallery copyright dispute (see previous Signpost article). Felten criticized the museum's argument, stating by comparison that "museums don’t go around claiming that by touching up the odd Rembrandt they’ve created something original with a shiny new copyright."[10]
- Litblog The Millions unearthed the second deletion discussion for journalist and writer Ed O'Loughlin, in which the subject himself characterized the article as "a starkly one-sided attack on my personal and professional character which is based entirely on highly partisan sources and falsehoods." O'Loughlin's profile has been raised since his first novel was put on the longlist for the Man Booker Prize on July 28th.[11][12] The post, picked up by other literary blogs, does not mention that the article was deleted and salted in January 2008.
- Jimmy Wales appeared in a CNN Money "Corner Office" video this week. He discussed the non-profit nature of Wikipedia, advertisements on Wikia, and the use of user-generated content by professionals.
- Christopher C. Miller (Miller17CU94) wrote an article for the July issue of Quality Progress, the organ of the American Society for Quality, about quality in everyday life: "Quality Isn’t a 9-to-5 Job" (membership or payment required to view). Miller discusses his participation in the Good Article process, collaborating with others (Reviewer: Arsenikk, Editors that assisted: Theilert, Voletyvole) on the article FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2009 to make it a certified Good Article.
References
- ^ "A Rorschach Cheat Sheet on Wikipedia?". New York Times. July 28, 2009.
- ^ "Testing times for Wikipedia after doctor posts secrets of the Rorschach inkblots". The Guardian. 29 July 2009.
- ^ "Victorian Psychiatrists Upset at Wikipedia Exposing Their Voodoo Secrets". Gawker. 29 July 2009.
- ^ See Talk:Rorschach test#Streisand break for a more extensive list of media coverage.
- ^ "Rorschach and Wikipedia: The battle of the inkblots". The Globe and Mail. 30 July 2009.
- ^ "Analyze This". Newsweek. 30 July 2009.
- ^ "Invisible Ink? What Rorschach Tests Really Tell Us". Science Daily. 30 July 2009.
- ^ "NIH Staffers Get Into the Wiki World". The Washington Post. July 28, 2009.
- ^ "NIH to Edit Wikipedia – A Slippery Slope?". OMB Watch. July 28, 2009.
- ^ "Whose Art Is It, Anyway?". The Wall Street Journal. 30 July 2009.
- ^ "Judges decide on Man Booker Dozen". The Man Booker Prizes. 28 July 2009.
- ^ "Debut Booker Longlister Subject of Controversy Online and Off". The Millions. 30 July 2009.
Discuss this story