Talk:Corruption in Lithuania

Spike in popularity

This article went from sub-500 pageviews/month just recently to ≈2500 pageviews/month now. And it keeps growing. Does anyone know what caused the spike in interest and pageviews?

Best, 153.126.216.72 (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC) Mantas from Tokyo

@153.126.216.72: Most likely due to some added keywords which were searched in Google - Wikipedia has high rankings in it. Or maybe the page is linked to some other source. -- Ke an (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

Regarding NPOV header: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#User:Detektyw z Wilna.

• Also pinging @Ke an: Please elaborate on the issues with this page. Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Let's start from the bigger picture with reputable sources:

Short summary:

1. Lithuania is ranked 38th out of 180 countries(and 16th among EU member states). Bellow Poland (36), Slovenia(34) and above Latvia(40), Czech Republic(42), Spain(42), Italy(54), Slovakia(54). Source - Corruption perceptions index 2017 of TI https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2017

2. Next - by "Irregular payments and bribes" Lithuania is 37 out of 137 in WEC The Global Competitiveness Report 2017–2018, page 185 http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2017-2018/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2017%E2%80%932018.pdf

By comparing these separate sources we see, that rankings of Lithuania don't diverge much. We see it is ranked in a less corrupted countries in a world context and slightly above the average in EU context.

Reading the Summary(which is not) of the current Wikipedia article which consists from separate atomic statements I cannot have a NPOV picture - it's just a collocation of corruption statements. It lacks general overview and analysis. There is no Balance in it. There are even sources from the year 2015 ['Lithuania has established a hotline for reporting corruption, but no major crimes have been reported in the first 5 years of its operation.'] and ['And international Gallup study found that 90% of Lithuanians believe that corruption is widespread in Lithuania's government']. And even from the year 2012! ['Lithuania's shadow economy was estimated to be 29% of the GDP in 2012.'] I would like to stress that these statements were added at the end of 2017 :)

Now about the biggest problems I see with the article editing in detail:

1. Lots of content adding/editing from IP addresses. There is a very high probability of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry here 82.221.111.11, 66.212.31.138, 37.0.124.86, 80.233.134.38, 27.102.102.245, 80.233.134.69, 193.204.159.192, 96.67.128.89, 78.56.105.63, 212.59.22.218, 197.189.219.146, 195.22.24.162, 78.60.222.230, 91.223.106.148 I think editing from IP addresses should be protected. A second step - make a research on Sock puppetry and block them if any. Editing from IP's started quite many edit waring and reverts.

2. There is 'Extent' section which is nice example of fakery. Index table like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania#International%20rankings is imitated. Percents are from different years starting 2012, ending 2017, no named references, just links to random collection of sources, and about 60% of them are secondary. Logically/statistically it should be the same survey. It looks like Lithuania has more than 200% of panelists - just some answer questions in 2012, 2015, some in 2017 :)) to different agencies, media and whenever they like.

3. Cherry picking. General statement ['Current environment is unsafe for investments and honest competition, according to independent experts.'] is elevated from random contextual ['International experts are pointing fingers to Lithuania's problems, because the current situation is unsafe for investment and fair competition.'] from a secondary source without link to International experts. Google translation of the whole article: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=lt&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=lt&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lrt.lt%2Fnaujienos%2Flietuvoje%2F2%2F185041%2Fbausmes-uz-korupcija-vieni-istatymai-neveikia-kitu-nera&edit-text=

4. Various conflicts or suing cases presented as corruption. Example - 'Lidl police headquarters case'. It was a conflict between Department of Cultural Heritage(Kultūros paveldo departamentas), some architects, who thought the building had some istoric/cultural value and Lidl who bought it with the right to demolish and build a new one. Corruption case was not even mentioned. There is quite good Google translation: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=lt&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=lt&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lzinios.lt%2Flzinios%2Fgimtasis-krastas%2Fkonfliktas-issprestas-vilniaus-valdzia-leido-lidl-griauti-buvusi-keliu-policijos-pastata%2F240711%2F&edit-text= Non-Lithuanian reader will have no clue of that is fed to him/her in this Lidl section.

I have presented just the most important cases. There a more of them - mostly cherry picking. I firmly think this page is owned Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content - most likely by trolls, it lacks NPOV badly - problems such as undue weight, POV fork, Balance are evident. It even has a "scientific" imitation of statistics - the 'Extent' section. Placing random corruption coverage by media to encyclopedia doesn't give credible picture. Every free country with free press has lots of cases or examples to select from.

Why Wikipedia is being attacked? Because it has good ratings in Google, and it is very convienent to generate believable fake news. For example:
Russian trolls 'planting fake news on Wikipedia' as part of 'treasure hunt' of misinformation
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5264889/Russian-trolls-planting-fake-news-Wikipedia.html
Beyond vandalism: Wikipedia trolls
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11887690.pdf
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke an (talk • contribs)

@Alexis Jazz and Ke an: in short, I think Ke an is correct about non-representative content of the article. While the information seems accurate, the article is a bit one-sided. On the other hand, claim that a source from 2012 is irrelevant by default ("too old") is laughable. So is the claim that its bad that the article incorporates multiple sources. Sock-puppetry claim might be true, but there is nothing in Ke an's message that warrants that conclusion. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Alexis Jazz: For the sake of professionalism, it would be good to ping @Pofka: as well. To be fair, Pofka's reasoning is strong when he focuses on the issue, rather than unsubstantiated personal attacks. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Ke an: "I think editing from IP addresses should be protected." Please go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I just got dragged into this by accident, I'm trying to guide this all a bit in the right direction but that's about it. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Alexis Jazz: Ok, thank you for mediating this. I have applied for page protection. -- Ke an (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• @Alexis Jazz: After 7 days I don't see any serious counterarguments regarding the POV of the article. Should we correct the content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke an (talk • contribs) 10 april (UTC)

@Ke an: Please sign your comments. Alexis Jazz (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Alexis Jazz and Ke an: Ke an, I would like to point out that the ANI investigation you initiated against me has been closed without any action. Alexis Jazz was also quick to jump the gun, but nevermind. As expected, there was no evidence of sock-puppeting and whatever else you blindly accused me of. As for editing this page, it would be beneficial. Please don't do censorship and discuss any controversial edits first. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• Dispute opened. Alexis Jazz (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

National polls

@Ke an: Please do not remove national polling data without any proper reason. Unsubstantiated and false claims that the data "is forged" does not seem to be a valid reason for removal. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Detektyw z Wilna: See Neutrality discussion. the reasons are more than enough.

@Ke an: What are you talking about? If there are any reasons mentioned somewhere else, feel free to copy-paste them here.Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

There is 'Extent' section which is nice example of fakery. Index table like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania#International%20rankings is imitated. Percents are from different years starting 2012, ending 2017, no named references, just links to random collection of sources, and about 60% of them are secondary. Logically/statistically it should be the same survey. It looks like Lithuania has more than 200% of panelists - just some answer questions in 2012, 2015, some in 2017 :)) to different agencies, media and whenever they like..

@Ke an: If you are referring to the discussion above, there is only one small comment on the national polls. Claim that index table is somehow fake is vague and difficult to understand. Table comprises data from multiple national surveys, so it is not surprising nor strange that data is from different years. There is no logic, nor statistical need for all data to be from one and the same survey to be considered valid. It does not look that Lithuania has more than 200% panelists. There is nothing of substance there, just a bunch of vague, unsubstantiated and plainly false accusations. Detektyw z Wilna (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

On 'nepotism' and 'famous cases' sections

I cleaned up the article a little bit, however I would argue that these two sections fail WP:NPOV and they are kind of WP:NEUS too. First, the context reads more like a rant rather than encyclopedic overview. Second, it's a cherry-picked random list of cases: why there is a subsection about corrupt mayor case, while arguably more important case of corrupt judges is not mentioned? What is the criteria for "famous" and how many cases should be be listed here anyway? It's also worth pointing out that many other articles on corruption in other countries (including those which score significantly worse in the rankings) have no "famous cases" sections at all. So, either a more clear criteria should be established for such content or it should just be removed. Mindaur (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In order to address the issues, unless anyone objects, I am going to replace the "Nepotism" and "Famous cases" sections with a more general section on "Prevalence" or "Extent", which would provide a general overview of areas where corruption is highest. --Mindaur (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)