Talk:Bribe Payers Index

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Direction of score

There is no explicit indication here whether a high score is good or bad. I would guess from the countries listed that it is good, but I shouldn't have to guess. - Jmabel | Talk 04:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are bribes good of bad? "Respondents are asked to answer on a scale of 1 (bribes are common) to 7 (bribes never occur). In calculating the BPI, the answers are converted to a score between 0 and 10, and the ranking reflects the average score." Kmorozov 15:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably bribes are bad, at least in TI's view. Yes, I see that the 1 to 7 scale is explained, but the numbers in the table are entirely from the 0 to 10 scale, whose direction goes unstated. - Jmabel | Talk 07:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a line from the original document to resolve the high score issue (= less likely to bribe, although I typed it wrong in my edit summary). I've noticed that the whole article is a cut and paste from the original report, is that OK? 86.136.209.53 13:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "cut and paste": the Wikipedia copyright police probably will not like that. I doubt that TI is at all unhappy to have us simply use their own self-presentation, or I'd be a lot more worried about it as a copyvio, but this should be rewritten. - Jmabel | Talk 22:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bribe Payers 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502091347/http://bpi.transparency.org/bpi2011/results/ to http://bpi.transparency.org/bpi2011/results/

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: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actualization

The figures on the table claim to e from BPI11, but the table shown in the official report is slightly different. I don't know if the data currently shown is updated since, outdated or just vandalized, but it should be checked and, either the data or the source, corrected.-47.60.113.96 (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]