Talk:Transparency International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TRansparency International explanation posted today (29.12.2004) has been taken from their official site: http://www.transparency.org/about_ti/index.html therefore it should NOT be changed unless the source text changes. (anon)

In short, you have replaced our article with a copyright violation. I have reverted it. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:21, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 No copyright violation, please revert to my last version of 29.12.2004 2 IWPR 3 Again, a possible effort by TI to control Wikipedia's coverage of them 4 Criticism 5 Transparency International: funded by Enron, Elf, Lockheed... 6 Transparency International frightening bloggers? 7 Transparency International: a 2002 analysis about links between TI and corrupted funders 8 Self-fulfilling prophecy 9 Incorporated governance

[edit] No copyright violation, please revert to my last version of 29.12.2004

as a member of TI Secretariat, entitled to use the information posted on our website (you rightly say, it is copyrighted) in public gateways like this one in order to correct versions about who we are. Therefore I request that you revert to my last version. Please answer to this message in case you want to contact me to verify the information I have just gave you. (unsigned, but posted by User:Robe34 30 March 2005)

At least initially, I'll leave it to others to sort out what best to do with the material User:Robe34 inserted, and which I had reverted. Apparently, we may quote from it freely. However, we do not typically allow organizations to "take over" the articles about themselves, any more than a newspaper would do so. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:15, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

There you have a point Jmabel, but it's not much as taking over, rather is to give precise information about who we are, what we do etc. To give you some examples from your own text (I'm sorry if I am too long):

We are devoted to fight corruption, not ONLY POLITICAL CORRUPTION as you say, we have a holistic approach towards corruption, hence that is contradictory, political corruption is part of our agenda and we have defined it as one of our global priorities, among others. There goes one we need to correct.

We don't have a "central secretariat" we are not a centralized organizacion, we are a network with an International Secretariat (central v.s. international means a complete different approach to our work, pretty horizontal).

About us moving to a completely democratic organization, I simply don't know what you mean here.

In sum, we, this coalition, went and spent a lot of time putting into black and white what and who we are and of course our approach, this is not really taking over but definetly a short cut to spending too much time in a debate that at the end would (could) end by at least accepting the information/terms in which our statements are written, regardless of the style in which are going to be presented here.

I think it would be far more profitable to talk in this space about many other aspects of our organisation (and of corruption) rather than only the "descriptive" part of it. Maybe we can put some more juice in here.

Over to you guys, thanks for responding Jmabel (again unsigned, but posted by User:Robe34 30 March 2005)

• Please sign your posts by typing ~~~~. Otherwise this gets very confusing. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:52, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not sure who you are addressing as "you". This article was written in various parts by various people, some of them probably well informed, some poorly. We should definitely incorporate any specific factual corrections you have (you can put them in yourself). However, wholesale replacement of longstanding copy (especially without specific comment on what was wrong with the copy remove) is generally not appreciated, for obvious reasons, especially when the replacement reads more like a press release than an encyclopedia article.
  

The nature of writing a Wikipedia article is that it requires a willingness to be involved in a give and take. If you don't have time (or inclination) for that give and take, which I can perfectly well understand, I suggest that instead of making big edits to the article, you place your material here on the talk page and tell people that they are free to mine it for the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:52, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Love to reach consensus. I will participate as one more of the "You group" caring not to intrude too much, just when I spot something that definetly needs changing. I saw some edits already, great! Robe34

By the way, I reccomend a book, its called The Professor and the Madman Robe34

• Yes, we have our share of both on this particular project. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:33, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IWPR

I wonder if IWPR and Transparency should have links on each other at the base of the pages?  ^freedomAnnawright 17:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Just links to each other wouldn't do much good, but if there is a relationship between the two, that should almost certainly be mentioned in both articles. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Again, a possible effort by TI to control Wikipedia's coverage of them

Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). As it stands, this is not properly a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not supposed to simply reprint a groups's FAC. Either this is a copyvio, or we have permission to quote from it, and should, but should write our own article. Or perhaps this is a POV fork of Index of perception of corruption? In any case, it is not OK in its present form. I'm raising the issue here because this is a longstanding related article that people interested in the subject probably have watchlisted. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I just edited a section which was crude and obviously written to defend TI. What a thankless task. ^freedom Annawright 17:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Thick as thieves by Christian de Brie (Reporter Le Monde diplomatique).

Christian de Brie himself goes as far to claim in a TV film (Lobbying by Myriam Tonelotto) shown on the french/german network arte that TI consists solely of large multinational concerns with support of governments or even intelligence agencies. --LuckyStarr 23:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The linked article really doesn't say much about TI, though. It says, in effect, international business is hopelessly evil and that TI is merely trying to report on governments that try to skim a percentage, hence serving the interests of hopelessly evil international business. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transparency International: funded by Enron, Elf, Lockheed...

Here is another critic article: Can Transparency International be trusted for Integrity?, published on South Asia Tribune [1]).

As for Christian de Brie, in my documentary film (Lobbying, au delà de l'enveloppe : [2]), he explains that TI is precisely funded by the biggest corrupter in the world, from Enron to Elf or Lookheed. In 2003, the year of the Enron scandal, T.I America was still proud to present Enron as official funder. Hereunder an excerpt of the interview Christian de Brie gave for the film, which can be freely screened free of rights in its French, German or English version. [3]) .

Christian de Brie:

NGO c’est quand même un mot qui ne convient pas tellement à cette organisation. C’est une association internationale qui a des correspondants dans tous les pays du monde, qui est une initiative américaine au départ, et qui se propose de lutter contre la corruption et plus précisément de rendre transparente la corruption, c’est à dire de révéler au public qui sont les corrompus. Et plus particulièrement les Etats et les gouvernements corrompus. Donc, Transparency s’occupe essentiellement de la corruption d’Etat, la corruption publique, celle qui touche les fonctionnaires, les ministres, les hommes politiques. Et ils s’efforcent de faire ça à partir de sondages qui sont effectués dans chaque pays à travers des correspondants qui ont l’habitude de travailler dans ces pays et qui notent, qui procèdent à une notation de la corruption de chaque pays, à partir de cela on dresse une liste annuelle qu’on publie et qu’on renouvelle tous les ans. Et Transparency a des moyens considérables qui lui permettent de faire savoir et de faire connaître à l’ensemble de la presse et à l’ensemble des media les résultats de ses opérations.

Alors bon, très simplement, c’est une supercherie. Transparency International c’est une opération qui a été montée par des grands corrupteurs, c’est-à-dire toutes les grosses sociétés multinationales du monde, généralement avec l’appui des gouvernements quand ce n’est pas un peu avec le soutien des services secrets, c’est un peu comme si on confiait au renard le soin de surveiller le poulailler en lui demandant de dénoncer systématiquement les souris qui iraient grignoter les grains de maïs des poules. C’est pas sérieux. Le résultat, c’est qu’on voit rarement apparaître les grands pays, les grandes puissances occidentales en tête des pays corrompus. Or si Transparency International faisait correctement son boulot, le numéro 1 des pays corrompus, tous les ans, serait systématiquement les Etats Unis, car c’est de loin le pays le plus corrupteur et le plus corrompus de la planète. Non pas parce que les Américains sont moins moraux ou plus immoraux que les autres, mais parce qu’ils ont les moyens de la corruption et qu’ils les utilisent systématiquement.

On vit dans un monde où la concurrence internationale, le marché, est de plus en plus mondialisé, la concurrence que se livrent les grandes entreprises pour capter des marchés est de plus en plus féroce. Il faut savoir qu’à l’échelon mondial, à l’échelon international, quel que soit le secteur d’activité, on ne peut obtenir de grand marché sans des pratiques de corruption. Ce n’est pas possible. Que ce soit dans les armes, dans le pétrole, dans les grands travaux publics, quel que soit le secteur, dans les chemins de fer, dans l’électricité, dans l’apurement des eaux, vous ne pouvez pas obtenir un grand marché, un métro, vous ne pouvez pas l’obtenir sans des pratiques de corruption. Qui varient d’un pays à l’autre, et les grandes firmes internationales, qui se battent à mort pour capter ces marchés, utilisent évidemment tous les moyens mis à leur disposition pour le faire. Et généralement elles utilisent bien au delà de la corruption classique, l’enveloppe ou le pot de vin de grand papa - qui continue d’exister- elles ont des moyens de pression beaucoup plus considérables et d’autant plus considérables qu’elles sont les ressortissantes d’Etats puissants.

Il est évident qu’un pays comme les Etats-Unis, qui a les moyens d’accéder à toute information, qui a un système universel de surveillance de toute la planète, qui est sous l’autorité d’un service secret américain qui s’appelle NSA, National Security Agency, peut capter n’importe quelle information dans le monde, la décrypter, l’utiliser. Et on sait très bien que l’un des clients de la NSA c’est pas seulement le Pentagone, ce sont aussi les entreprises américaines à qui l’on peut fournir des informations sur le comportement de certains gouvernements, sur les marchés en perspective, sur les exigences de ces marchés, et donc en fournissant ces informations on donne à ces entreprises les moyens d’agir auprès des gouvernements pour obtenir ces marchés.

D’autre part des pays comme les Etats Unis mais aussi les grands pays européens ont des moyens de pression indirects sur le plupart des gouvernements ou de Etats qui passent des commandes . Parce qu’ils ont des liens d’activité économique, parce que souvent ces pays là sont dans un dépendance financière, et donc ils ont des moyens de pression très précis. Or ces grandes sociétés multinationales, les gouvernements qui les soutiennent, voient généralement d’un mauvais œil les pratiques de corruption classique, traditionnelles, celles que dénonce Transparency International, qui consistent à glisser une enveloppe à un fonctionnaire pour obtenir quelque chose, parce que ça leur fait une concurrence qu’ils pourraient juger entre guillemets « déloyale » entre corrupteurs, eux ils préfèrent une forme de corruption beaucoup plus élaborée, beaucoup plus sophistiquée qui n’est accessible qu’aux grandes firmes qui ont les moyens de le faire. Et donc ce qu’ils voudraient, à travers des opérations comme Transparency International, c’est éliminer du marché de la corruption la petite corruption traditionnelle, qui dérange. Ce qui ne les empêche pas de la pratiquer à l’occasion, parce que eux aussi continuent d’utiliser les enveloppes et les pots de vin. D’ailleurs la plupart de ces enveloppes elles ne sont plus transmises de valise à valise, généralement on les retrouves sous une forme beaucoup plus abstraite, dans des comptes numérotés des paradis fiscaux. Or le réseau mondial des paradis fiscaux est principalement et massivement utilisé par toutes les grandes banques du monde », ce sont elles qui les tiennent. Ce ne sont pas le Burkina Fasso ni le Bangladesh, dont on sait très bien comment fonctionne le système , on comment fonctionne le circuit, et ce qui est intéressant dans ces opérations de type Transparency international, encore une fois c’est cet effet de rationalisation ce la corruption sous une autre forme plus élaborée, plus sophistiquée, et certainement beaucoup plus efficace.

Christian the Brie in "Lobbying, au delà de l'enveloppe", ARTE/NDR/Ana-films; director: myriam tonelotto (myriam.tonelotto2(arrobase)laposte.net)

((myriam tonelotto)) 9 Feb 2006

The above comment was modified (including changes to the HTML links) 28 August 2006 by 62.241.76.79 (talk · contribs), presumably the same person who made the comments originally. Please, if you are liable to modify your comments from a different URL, open an account and use it. Otherwise, it is very hard to distinguish this sort of revision from vandalism of someone else's comments.

[edit] Transparency International frightening bloggers?

Now this is interesting...

• Transparency the German way

The German chapter of Transparency International is in the middle of a self infected publicity disaster this weekend. A lawyer representing Transparency International - Deutschland e.V has threatened to sue the ass of a young German blogger unless she removes a blog post of hers by Sunday midnight. She received the threatening e-mail less than 48 hours before the dead line.

• Kritik an TI at Wikipedia in German

Im März 2006 ging TI Deutschland gegen die Verfasserin eines privaten Weblogs vor, die über die ihrer Meinung nach unfaire Kündigung einer ehemaligen Angestellten von TI Deutschland berichtet hatte. Der Justiziar der Organisation verlangte die Löschung des Artikels und drohte mit rechtlichen Schritten. Diese Reaktion stieß in vielen Weblogs nicht nur im deutschsprachigen Raum auf Widerspruch; auch etablierte Medien berichteten über den Vorfall.[2] Dabei wurde der Vorwurf laut, dass TI sich in diesem Fall nicht an die eigenen ethischen Grundsätze halte.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I suspect that some further relevant materials can be found by googling "Transparency site:http://wasweissich.twoday.net"; I skimmed the results, some look interesting. But would someone please work on the relevant section of our article in terms of better sourcing? - Jmabel | Talk 18:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transparency International: a 2002 analysis about links between TI and corrupted funders

Since then, Enron is no more TI America funder. But others still are. As says Christian De Brie : asking an NGO funded by the most corrupted companies through the world to fight corruption, it's just like asking the fox to denounce the mices stealing corn from a an henhouse.

• How Low Can You go? The Corruption Of Corporate Imperialism

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.241.76.79 (talk • contribs) 28 August 2006.

[edit] Self-fulfilling prophecy

The article currently says:

The first is a danger of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Country analysts might be influenced by past corruption indices and therefore not realise changes.

If the corruption index worked as a self-fulfilling prophecy, this would mean that it influenced corrption; not that it influenced future corruption indexes. Because the corruption index says nothing about corruption indexes, it cannot be a prophecy (self-fulfilling or not) about these indexes. Also, because the index says nothing about the future anyway, the very idea of it being a prophecy of any kind is quite absurd.

However, I don't feel knowledgable enough about the topic to make accurate changes to the paragraph. May others do it in my stead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.229.186.82 (talk • contribs) 8 November 2006.

I disagree. It is an index of perception of corruption, not of corruption, and clearly the index influences that perception. - Jmabel | Talk 20:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorporated governance

An anon turned "addressing corruption" into "addressing corruption and incorporated governance". This makes no sense to me, and I suspect will make little sense to anyone else. A Google search on "incorporated governance" turns up mostly coincidences like "IDA has incorporated governance considerations in its work." The only place I could find the expression used as such was complexxon.org, which led me to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complexxon, which tells me that not only was an article on Complexxon deleted, but so was one on precisely the expression "incorporated governance". I gather that we are being subjected to a sort of spam here. - Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)