Talk:Radical transparency/Archives/2013

open governance?

Would a more accurate merge be from radical transparency to open "governance" - rather than government?

As noted below, using the word "government" rules out non-profits and corporates. Just doesn't sound right.

I agree that radical transparency needs to be merged under a more general field, and a better, already existing option might be open source governance. That still leaves the subject of origins of open government and whether it needs merging as a form of, again, open source governance. Open governance sounds like a feasibile category to me - what say?

jason

avaiki (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

+merge options

This page is not only about Corporate Transparency.

1. complete personal and corporate transparency
2. the health, safety, and wellbeing of individuals, neighborhoods, communitys, institutions, governments and social support systems that subscribe,
3. the protection of the natural environment, and
4. the dynamic development of the social assumptions, laws, and conviviance that construct the radical transparency paradigm.

suggest:

1. make Corporate page a redirect to radical transparency.
2. put the Corporate article in radical transparency.

reg. Mion 20:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I agree with Mion that this page should not be merged.

We at EcoReality have inter-linked this page in multiple places on our site. We are a BC Cooperative Association, not a Corporation. Many other non-corporate bodies embrace radical transparency, including non-profits, ad-hoc unincorporated organizations, government bodies, religious/spiritual organizations, educational institutions, individuals, etc.

In fact, radical transparency has little to do with US corporations that must, by law, be run to maximize profit -- even to the detriment of transparency! To that extent, "Corporate Transparancy" is more a wish than reality.

Also, the existing Corporate Transparency page name does not conform with established standards, and the canonical name (corporate transparency) is 404. If anything, if there is a merge, both Corporate Transparency and corporate transparency should redirect here. --Bytesmiths 01:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

the Corporate Transparency is not a 404, but I see your point, that Radical Transparancy in itself is not automaticly a Corporate Transparency, like in your case. Mion 01:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

the option could be a == See Also== section on both articles. Mion 01:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

changed the merge option to See Also. Mion 01:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Radical_Transparency is a potential component of universal ethics

In a more and more complex world, the critical processes that make up the safety and wellbeing of our planet, need the maximal awareness of all minds. Governments only represent a tiny fraction of the "Global Brain". Therefore I opt for "Don't subordinate it under OpenGovernment". Of course, if every mind is continuously participating in OpenGovernment in the widest sense, then "Merge" is an option for me.

BiLinked supporting context in <-> AboutUs:Transparency

--Fridemar (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved a very unusual "corporate transparency" definition from Corporate transparency, where it was listed as the default definition, to Radical transparency, where it is now listed as the subsection "Radical corporate transparency", and cleaned it up best I could. As discussion on RT page noted, much of it did not make sense, so it's back to a kernel that hopefully does. JohnMSmart (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)