Bruce L. Smith, a psychologist and president of the International Society of the Rorschach and Projective Methods, argues that the “more test materials are promulgated widely, the more possibility there is to game [the test],” a prospect that threatens to “render the results meaningless.” Smith’s feelings are shared by many within the psychology community who object to the test being analyzed and made public on Wikipedia.

But the other side of the issue sits a group that is just as vocal, Wikipedia users who believe very strongly in Wikipedia’s free content ethos. With this point-counterpoint, one can make the parallel to the much broader issue of how the world of intellectual property that exists on the web is to be fairly distributed. This argument represents an old one in the relatively young history of the internet, conjuring memories of Napster vs. Metallica, dorm room lawsuits issued against college downloaders, and most recently Gladwell vs. Anderson. But where music and other forms of downloadable art can lean on copyright infringement, this particular intellectual property dilemma can’t – the copyright on the Rorschach test has expired, technically making them legal under the terms of “fair use”. Which means, pursuing a lawsuit to remove the images would be difficult and unlikely.

However, Trudi Finger, a spokeswoman for Hogrefe & Huber, the company that initially bought and distributed Rorschach’s book, insists that the company is “assessing legal steps against Wikipedia.” She goes on to say, “It is therefore unbelievably reckless and even cynical of Wikipedia, to on one hand point out the concerns and dangers voiced by recognized scientists and important professional associations and on the other hand — in the same article — publish the test material along with supposedly ‘expected responses.’ ”

She may have a point. But in this collision of historically significant entities, perhaps what is right legally and ethically may be at odds. Should this ever go to trial, it will be interesting (and perhaps historic) to see on which side the precedent falls.