As someone who studies psychology, I'd like to agree with and add something to what Jan said above.
This test *critically* relies on people being honest and open about what they see -- and not just this test, but others in psychology too (read: this is a precedent issue too).
The whole idea in this particular test - I repeat, because this is critical here: the WHOLE idea - is that the viewer makes whatever observation comes to mind, which almost always gives an impression of their unconscious state of mind. This, in turn, is often always about something that the person is not comfortable (or able) to articulate openly.
The more a person knows about how this test - and other tests! - are interpreted, the less likely some patients may be to 'disclose' their situation, and therefore less likely to be helped. (note: this does problem not require any conscious `gaming,` as you call it).
Mike (Masnick), in this article, you`ve essentially argued that because wiki's publication of the Rorschach is clearly legal (and I agree that it is), it is also ethically acceptable. I know that, on the many issues where your expertise allows a firm grasp of the subtleties at hand, you understand such a claim to be false.
I ask that you, at the very least, consider that there are issues here which extend beyond mere copyright. This ethical issue is not centred on profit (as with so many other copyright cases), and the principle is not even centred on the Rorschach in particular.
The issue is that test results may be confounded if their inner workings are revealed, rendering them less useful, reducing or slowing the help that psychologists can deliver. The unusual characteristic with the Rorschach is that simple viewing and explanation may be enough to have this effect.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Mike.