Looks like a butterfly

As pointed out at Slashdot a couple of days ago, there is a pretty interesting converstation going on over at Wikipedia about whether it is ethical for them to include images of Rorschach inkblots. The inkblots are now in the public domain, so the issue is not ownership. The issue is that the Rorschach inkblot test requires that the images be novel to the subject, so would Wikipedia be doing harm by potentially depriving those in need of psychological help a potential treatment tool. The conversation on the talk page has gotten quite long so I’ve only skimmed most of it, but it’s interesting to look through – both for the debate on this particular issue and for the view of how it is determined what to include or not. Is the choice of whether to include the images on Wikipedia the same as the choice of whether to include them in a scholarly text which the public might also access (but presumably less conveniently). Is the fact that there are many experts who deny the validity of the test and feel it is not a legitimate psychological tool?
With regards to the blots, they are currently shown at the bottom of the page. It sounds like there has also been discussion of whether they ought to be hidden behind a link with a disclaimer that allows people to choose whether they wish to see them or not.