Wikimedia Research Newsletter, December 2011
22.02.12
That had found "particularly damaging
information" about personality assessment tests on the Internet as early as
2000, "including examples of test stimuli from... the Rorschach" (presumably
including this
site ). Still, "Internet coverage of the Rorschach appeared to grow
exponentially during" the 2009 debate about the Wikipedia article, which made
it to the front page of the New York Times (
Signpost coverage: " Rorschach test
dispute reported ").
The first part of the study examined the top 50 Google search results for
" Rorschach "
(excluding "watchmen" in order to filter out results about a comic book and
film) and "inkblot
test" , coding them into four levels representing the "threat each site
presents to test security and the extent to which the content of the site might
aid an individual in dissimulating on the Rorschach". 44% of the sites were
classified as Level 0 ("no threat"), e.g. home page of bands with "Rorschach"
in their name, and 15% as Level 1 ("minimal threat"). The 22% Level 2
("indirect threat") sites which "tended to discuss test procedures more
explicitly" apparently included "several ‘official' Rorschach Web sites,
where one is able to register for Continuing Education Rorschach workshops,
[and which] also allow visitors to purchase materials that contain sensitive
test information. For example, certain training Web sites allow individuals to
purchase training texts and instructional media without requiring a license or
other professional credentials". The authors find it "disturbing" that many
sites in this threat category "were authored by psychologists". 19% of the
sites were classified as the highest level, "direct threat", e.g. many that
contained depictions of one or more Rorschach inkblots, or specific information
about how responses are interpreted. Together with results about the high
percentage of Internet users consulting Wikipedia for health information (36%
in the US in 2007 according to Pew research), the authors conclude that "we can
no longer presume that examinees have not been exposed to this information
prior to an assessment".
Source: Watching the Watchers.org