This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Is there a reason that the table is in two pieces? Would it not be better to have a single table ranking all States? Svyatoslav (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I have another more basic question about the table. Why not show the rankings for each year instead of the scores? The article states more than once that scores can not be compared across years, then it presents a table that invites the reader to do just that. If the only longitudinally meaningful data are the ranks, show the ranks for each year, not the scores.
will (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Table needs proper sorting
The table is not sorted properly.
Judging from most of the entries, it seems that the intention is to sort the list column by column starting from the leftmost column. But some entries are clearly misplaced. Eg, China and Trinidad are misplaced. Marcopolo112233 (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Corrected the sorting of the rows under ranking 78 myself since no-one has volunteered to do it.Marcopolo112233 (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
South Africa
South Africa should be scoring a MINUS 10 by now...156.8.251.250 (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
what is the source of info used for India to be ranked?
Has any Indian sources were contacted before publishing such misleading table of ranking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarma74 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Why is Burma and Myanmar on two separate lines? 67.187.178.149 (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I just fixed it. --spitzl (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Criticism
Is the size of the 'Criticism' section too long? Currently it's longer than the rest of the article's subsections combined (excluding the list). I don't know anything about the Index but the impression from this article is that it is totally discredited. I'm not sure that's the actual case though. Is there any way of balancing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.129.72.86 (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
It's because the list are superficial and misleading, to most of the people, It should be noted as well, Easily because there sources are third grade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.36.79 (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
regarding norway
norway is very corrupt. it isnt getting any better either. corrupt people rules and takes much of the government founding for themselves. the politicians takes money from state and spend it on their own privatee projects. the evidence however is buried deep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I think your understanding of a very corrupt country is, to your luck, far from reality; take a look at situation in some other countries. Anyway, this article is for Corruption Perceptions Index, a specific index performed by a specific organization, so opinions (not to mention complete lack of proof) are irrelevant. StasMalyga (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Separate the rank order column
This table would be easier to update if the rank order column was separate. See Help:Sorting, and the sections about removing and separating the rank column.
The rank order, or row numbering, would rank whatever column is being sorted. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Table sorting not working correctly
Clicking on the "arrow" symbols sorts the next column to the left... No idea how to fix that. -- megA (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I think I fixed the sorting problems for now. For more help try asking at Help talk:Sorting. I don't keep close watch on this page.
Thanks for taking the time to overhaul the table! -- megA (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Very misleading (corrupted) colour coding
Both the map and the table seem to have a colour scheme designed to make USA look less bad then it is. On the map, USA is in the blue, just like "not corrupted" countries, in the table it USA is green, just like "not corrupted" countries. In reality, only countries with a score of 9-10 could be considered reasonably uncorrupted.
I bet that if USA get worse scores in the future, the colour scheme will change accordingly.
In my opinion, the map should have a sliding scale, to avoid reflecting any opinions. Perhaps a grey-scale where black is 0 and white is 10.
The table is slightly harder to design, so it remains easy to read (but without being corrupt ;-), as it is now). Someone else have any ideas --217.210.238.151 (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the color code based on this scheme on the right. It might be bit too dark but at least it is not misleading. --spitzl (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not even that. The entire thing is blatantly fake, and obviously racist. It's just propaganda. Show me the facts that support it. Show me them. Do you remember recieving a questionaire asking you how corrupt you thought different countries are? I certainly never received such a questionnaire, answered such a poll, or etc. And, I bet you didn't either. This is like the claims that Christianity is the dominant religion in the United States, or the new one that it's dominant world-wide. It is not based off any facts, or statistics. It is made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.194.217 (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
You don't have to call every single person to measure perception of corruption. If you click on the image it says below it that the data is from http://www.transparency.org/cpi2010/results I didn't read their report but you can research yourself if their methodology is flawed or if they are disreputable. Now, if you go on their site, the colour scheme is a much more reasonable red-orange-yellow transition, so whoever uploaded this blue-red map on wikipedia intentionally set out to make non-"western" countries look far worse, so there's likely some racism involved. I recommend using the source's original colour scheme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.104.20 (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Why did the list of countries disappear?
Where is the list????? --108.92.162.111 (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
It is copyrighted Bevo74 (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Data can not be copyrighted, and the person who blanked the page did not link to a table supposedly being copied. I reverted the blanking of the table page:
This list is not raw data, it is an index created from the gathering and analysis of data and information, which is then combined into a single number. This act is a creative one, and that makes the index copyrightable under US copyright law. The pages it appears in all carry a copyright notice, so this information cannot be used on Wikipedia without a release from the copyright holder. Do not restore, copyright violations are taken seriously here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Data can not be copyrighted. You can research this more and find out that this is true, or you can continue to look ignorant about this issue. I really don't care. Others will keep reverting your incorrect blanking of non-copyrighted material. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it is you who needs a better understanding of copyright law. The index is not "data", it is research, analysis and interpretation turned into a number. It is the result of a creative act, and that is most certainly copyrightable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Please centralize the discussion there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
On the Transparency Intl website's copyrights page (http://www.transparency.org/copyright) they mention 2 things: 1) the data can be used for educational purposes and 2) written permission can be granted. Since Wikipedia is a non profit, I can't imagine they would not consent. They give an email address (copyright@transparency.org). How would one go about getting written permission? I.e., would someone attached to Wikipedia need to make the inquiry? Harburg (talk)
That we (Wikipedia) allow our site to be used for commercial purposes means that "non-commercial use" licenses are not adequate, even though Wikipedia is non-commercial. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 19:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I can't for the life of me understand why you care about or see it as your duty to protect their supposed copyright when the information is freely distributed and openly available online, but if this page can't contain the only really interesting part of information about the list (the list), it has little value and appears to fail notability. If I went to a scientific conference and heard a long talk about setup, methods, funding, the people involved and then a long discussion of validity of results, criticism of results, inference from results etc, but the speaker refused to show the actual results, I would feel cheated and like I hadn't learned anything at all. This article is like that now - it only exists as an independent article as a relic of the better informed past. If it's truly correct that this is yet another victim of copyright, I think we might as well delete this whole thing and merge it with Transparency International main article.Spearman (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Actual corruption levels
Most countries would rank at 10-20% clean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.77.236 (talk) 05:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I compare old figures to new figures at the TPI website. It seems that until and including the year 2011 results were published on a 0-10 scale with one decimal, while from 2012 results are published on a 0-100 scale with zero decimals. How do these two measures compare? Can anyone confirm that the new measure is simply the same as the old measure multiplied by a factor of ten? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.97.113 (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Strange correlation
Why is there such a strong correlation between natively Germanic-speaking countries (dark blue on the map below) and low perceived corruption? Look at the difference between Latin and Germanic Europe or Anglo and Latin America. Is there any logical explanation to this?
Because the so-called Index was created and is maintained by the United States and its European slave states! A real Corruption Perception Index would rate the United States at 0.
This comment will soon be deleted, because Wikipedia is a US government propaganda website, authorized to tell only US Government LIES, and all of its so-called editors are government employees. If they disagree, that just proves they're liars and child rapists as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.152.178 (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it's because Germanic/Anglo cultures are less likely to be corrupt. Something to do with the Protestant work ethic maybe? I'm sure the Transparency International Website would explain why 98.195.204.26 (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Not only that, 8 out of 10 are monarchies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.234.125 (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
No there are Catholic domains (South of NL and Germany, Belgium) too. Most of these states simply have been stable for centuries (even if the states are not even that old, like the NL, Belgium and Germany). Also all these states had social structures and mechanisms that countered the influence of the central government (due to Pillarization, Guilds, Magna Carta or their federative nature). And last but not least, they were simply rich.
88.159.64.210 (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
That graphical representation is wrong according to the list. Germany for example. --187.42.243.86 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
This is just one of the many things that prove germanics are a superior race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.142.56 (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. Germanic-speaking countries like JAPAN. Moron. Fedor (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Less is more
How could the united states gain more point in the anti corruption index? Even if you think it's flawed, telling me would be nice. Less working with companies? Please tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singsongerd (talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Nepal's colour is wrong. Nepal is not even in the lowest countries so the dark red colour is wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:240:FE3D:4:39C3:7A18:4788:ADDE (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Broken markup?
There is something wrong with 2015 section. Broken markup maybe?80.64.168.214 (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
When you posted your comment there was no 2015 section. I have added it now. Faltur (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Faltur: He was talking about this actually. Thanks for updating the article nevertheless. -- Chamith(talk) 04:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Somalia missing
Hi, Somalia is missing from the list though it is showing on the map as being as low as North Korea.
203.41.138.6 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)TMS
Resolved Thanks for your report, the country was added to the table. Faltur (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
2015 Report
The data in the 2015 report seems to be off from the data presented in the citation. Some like Russia is only off by a point but others like Pakistan is ranked at 154 here rather than 117. Turkmenistan too is ranked 119 here rather than 154. I'm not sure how many others are wrong. Mali is much lower too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.80.125 (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Corruption Perceptions Index. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Usually cleaning up this kind of obvious misstep in an article takes a matter of seconds. With this one there's some augean stability. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Corruption Perceptions Index. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have updated the "Rankings" section and added 2017 and 2018. I did my best to review it, but I built a tool to compute the values. If something looks incorrect, please contact me and I will fix the tool and recompute the table. If this fulfills the requirements of the page being out of date (as per the banner at the top and the banner above the "2012 - 2018" section), then someone might want to remove them.
It was obviously vandalism. The edit was made by an unsigned guest from an IP registered to Hanoi. My thought is that it was certainly either a super-patriotic Vietnamese national, or the propaganda arm either of the Vietnamese government or the Communist Party of Vietnam, that done it. Either way, I went ahead and reverted to the last edit before that edit.—MNTRT2009 (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hong Kong labeled as “Brunei” on map?
On the SVG map, a dot that I believe is intended to represent Hong Kong is labeled “Brunei” on hover.
(Notably, I believe that this dot is the only new geographical designation added when adapting this map from its apparent source file.)
The choice of colors in the map is dreadful as countries at the two extremes have very similar colors.Bill (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and if you are colorblind it is not easy to read. 84.250.11.118 (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
> Map updated with CPI 2020 data undo [& ColorBrewer RdYLGn diverging palette] (28 January 2021, A3hxK81s7z)
Too wide table
I think that "2012-2019" table should be split in multiple parts for being too wide for most browsers. (To reduce side scrolling). Perhaps put only 4 or 5 years in one row, and split that table to 2 or 3 narrower ones. 84.250.11.118 (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
> Improved readability of the main table (28 January 2021, A3hxK81s7z)
Shouldn't the 2012-2021 rankings table be in order?
I noticed that the table under the 2012-2021 subsection of the Rankings section is somewhat out of order. For example, some numbers are a few spots lower or higher than they should be. I looked at the official list, and the numbers there are in order. Should the table be fixed to make the numbers in order? Tali64^2, always top quality. (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
EU Corruption Index
unclear point of view
The Corruption of Eve - EU
The accounts not being signed off by the auditors in over 30 years on Corruption Index must put it No.1 in the world for the last ten years.
To leave them out of any corruption index is question you have to ask?
Why is the EU exempt from such scrutiny?
The current level of corruption in its history must put it as one of the highest corruption organisation ever.
An extent which has not been explored enough the damage it has caused.
The underlying political avarice is normally linked at lower end to criminal activity that deal with multiplicity of crimes
The people want to use this money for gain normally have to deal with people who are also willing; thus, that category is normally filled by criminals.
Have people been killed to do with EU Grants - YES
Is this corruption? - YES
Have political favours been done to give people plum jobs in the EU, rather than their talent - YES
The so-called benefits of the EU and if the same regulation could have been done by bilateral agreements still has not been thoroughly analysed.
Why do you need an institution to agree inter-domain or inter-country liaison?
It just adds an tier of red-tape and cost?
Why do you need another tier of politicians?
Parish
District
County
Nation 1st Chamber
Nation 2nd Chamber
Superstate - Why, more politicians?
Where is my vote for my taxes - direct vote, not proxy vote?
A person's vote is their will to share in the determination of their community. You respect that person's will. I care not a jot about their intelligence, emotions, logic or thought.Who am I to judge theirs is less or more. What ruler in my soul can judge any other or voice righteousness? I see not the apple, seed, leaf or tree.
I am humble in your presences that you vote.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertoaster2 (talk • contribs)
The notion that Europe is exempt from corruption beggars belief. The fact the EU never makes its self available to public scrutiny and accountability while billions of Euros are unaccounted for screams corruption by either neglect or deliberate fraud. HuttonIT (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
How is Singapore rated at 4?
Aren't they a one party dictatorship with strong gerrymandering every election? --60.240.148.170 (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
This article lists only perceptions of corruption. Whether a state actually is corrupt is another matter entirely. JoshN (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
UAE QUATAR BAHRAİN SAUDİ ARABİA Azerbaijan SHOULD BE REVİEWED
There is virtually no possibility that the above nations who have been the poster of using oil money budget as their own piggy bank. A lay person without any expertise can see how flagarant life style food delivery from France by flight etc. etc. there has been no report of any salary for the top leaders and if there is one it will never reconcile with their expenditures. These countries also have sophisticated highly paid PR companies monitoring articles about these countries. They also pay millions in so called gifts to think thanks, journalists, and who knows perhaps the individuals who submltted the information for these countries. The PR protection also includes pro active bribes to produce favorable articles, deleting internet infotrmation negative and virtually an army of people hired around the worls especially in india to monitor comment refute negative comments on social networks. If you could not see the blaring kleptocracy in those golf nations apparent to all then the entire article has no value and it should be deleted - no wonder its semi protected. 213.14.147.13 (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
This article lists only perceptions of corruption. Whether a state actually is corrupt is another matter entirely. JoshN (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Perception of Corruption is not an adequate measure of corruption
As per title, this would mean that perception of corruption is a flawed index. Who is the perceiver? In that case, it would be wise to include a template, something along the lines of factual accuracy 118.211.76.187 (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Disagreement with the index does not mean coverage of it is factually inaccurate. CMD (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Frustration
I just spent 3 days formatting the 2020-2022 table code, so that it's no longer a continuous string of confusion & everything was lost. Because Wikipedia threw an error when I tried to switch between editing views, at the end. Thank you Wikipedia. Dhyana b (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Resolved Thanks for your report, the country was added to the table. Faltur (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
