28 ms·

> I did read your Wikipedia article. It wasn’t “my” Wikipedia article. Another commenter posted it. I just read it before commenting. > fancy term for an opin

> I did read your Wikipedia article. It wasn’t “my” Wikipedia article. Another commenter posted it. I just read it before commenting. > fancy term for an opinion unless they detail their methodology with evidence. You mean this methodology? Which is linked at the bottom of the Wikipedia article?? So you clearly didn’t read it. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020 https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020 When I make comments on things online, I try to educate myself first rather than just asserting things with bias.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
I'll admit both that I thought you were the original poster and that their methodology is available in the links, though not discussed in the Wikipedia article. However, their methodology itself backs up what I say, that they are only measuring perception of corruption. They are explicitly based on opinion, not any actual measure of corruption. Here's the first criteria for a source from the methodology. It must >Quantify perceptions of corruption in the public sector Beyond that, as mentioned I did read the Wikipedia article, and your personal attacks are unnecessary.
- crazydoggers 5y ago
  I didn’t make any personal attacks. It’s not a personal attack to point out that you haven’t read something that you are commenting on. And I honestly don’t believe you read it in detail before your first comments. (perhaps you skimmed it, which is not the same as reading it). Although of course I could be wrong. I just pointed out the points you made do not line up with the actual description of the Corruption Perception Index. I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t read the Wikipedia page in detail, rather than read it and instead decided to make unfounded claims about it. Your misreadings, like the suggestion that there was no methodology (which is actually described in the Wikipedia page, along with a citation) only underscore that assertion. Indeed taken at face value, posting a comment that the CPI has no defined methodology could be considered purposeful misinformation. Your first comment was > [the CPI] would be subject to the same bias the article discusses. Even when the British government gives away $24 billion dollars to people recommended by MPs and government officials, that isn't perceived as "corruption" in the same way. You may say that it’s a “perception” of corruption, but since we’re talking about corruption it usually has to be, since if it were just out in the open, usually that’s not where most corruption lies. Instead the CPI asks people who are effected by corruption their assessments. For example, members of the African Development Bank were asked questions along the following lines: “the extent to which the executive can be held accountable for its use of funds and the results of its actions by the electorate and by the legislature and judiciary, and the extent to which public employees within the executive are required to account for the use of resources, administrative decisions, and results obtained“ Asking people effected by corruption seems like a pretty effective way to gauge corruption. In fact in your MP example, you would definitely get people pointing out that the current “sleaze” is corruption on those criteria. In fact the CPI ranks the UK at number 11 with 77 out of 100, meaning that the surveys uncovered corruption. Again that goes against your initial comment that the CPI isn’t perceiving UK corruption. And the reason the other person posted the CPI was to provide data pointing out how the article was biased based on some concrete evidence. If on the other hand, there is some concrete data about why the CPI is biased and over reports African corruption relative to UK, and how it does so, then that’s useful information. But hand-wavy “it’s all opinion” isn’t helpful or honest. In the end there’s clearly some reason that most African nations rate poorly on the CPI. Trying to pretend it’s all bias, that the CPI levels of African and Middle eastern countries are low only because of survey bias, requires some significant proof. (Especially if taken in the context of everything that is known about the strength of law in those countries). “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

boomboomsubban 5y ago

I'll admit both that I thought you were the original poster and that their methodology is available in the links, though not discussed in the Wikipedia article. However, their methodology itself backs up what I say, that they are only measuring perception of corruption. They are explicitly based on opinion, not any actual measure of corruption. Here's the first criteria for a source from the methodology. It must >Quantify perceptions of corruption in the public sector Beyond that, as mentioned I did read the Wikipedia article, and your personal attacks are unnecessary.

crazydoggers 5y ago
I didn’t make any personal attacks. It’s not a personal attack to point out that you haven’t read something that you are commenting on. And I honestly don’t believe you read it in detail before your first comments. (perhaps you skimmed it, which is not the same as reading it). Although of course I could be wrong. I just pointed out the points you made do not line up with the actual description of the Corruption Perception Index. I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t read the Wikipedia page in detail, rather than read it and instead decided to make unfounded claims about it. Your misreadings, like the suggestion that there was no methodology (which is actually described in the Wikipedia page, along with a citation) only underscore that assertion. Indeed taken at face value, posting a comment that the CPI has no defined methodology could be considered purposeful misinformation. Your first comment was > [the CPI] would be subject to the same bias the article discusses. Even when the British government gives away $24 billion dollars to people recommended by MPs and government officials, that isn't perceived as "corruption" in the same way. You may say that it’s a “perception” of corruption, but since we’re talking about corruption it usually has to be, since if it were just out in the open, usually that’s not where most corruption lies. Instead the CPI asks people who are effected by corruption their assessments. For example, members of the African Development Bank were asked questions along the following lines: “the extent to which the executive can be held accountable for its use of funds and the results of its actions by the electorate and by the legislature and judiciary, and the extent to which public employees within the executive are required to account for the use of resources, administrative decisions, and results obtained“ Asking people effected by corruption seems like a pretty effective way to gauge corruption. In fact in your MP example, you would definitely get people pointing out that the current “sleaze” is corruption on those criteria. In fact the CPI ranks the UK at number 11 with 77 out of 100, meaning that the surveys uncovered corruption. Again that goes against your initial comment that the CPI isn’t perceiving UK corruption. And the reason the other person posted the CPI was to provide data pointing out how the article was biased based on some concrete evidence. If on the other hand, there is some concrete data about why the CPI is biased and over reports African corruption relative to UK, and how it does so, then that’s useful information. But hand-wavy “it’s all opinion” isn’t helpful or honest. In the end there’s clearly some reason that most African nations rate poorly on the CPI. Trying to pretend it’s all bias, that the CPI levels of African and Middle eastern countries are low only because of survey bias, requires some significant proof. (Especially if taken in the context of everything that is known about the strength of law in those countries). “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”