Paper detail

Uneven Coverage of Natural Disasters in Wikipedia: the Case of Flood

The usage of non-authoritative data for disaster management presents the opportunity of accessing timely information that might not be available through other means, as well as the challenge of dealing with several layers of biases. Wikipedia, a collaboratively-produced encyclopedia, includes in-depth information about many natural and human-made disasters, and its editors are particularly good at adding information in real-time as a crisis unfolds. In this study, we focus on the English version of Wikipedia, that is by far the most comprehensive version of this encyclopedia. Wikipedia tends to have good coverage of disasters, particularly those having a large number of fatalities. However, we also show that a tendency to cover events in wealthy countries and not cover events in poorer ones permeates Wikipedia as a source for disaster-related information. By performing careful automatic content analysis at a large scale, we show how the coverage of floods in Wikipedia is skewed towards rich, English-speaking countries, in particular the US and Canada. We also note how coverage of floods in countries with the lowest income, as well as countries in South America, is substantially lower than the coverage of floods in middle-income countries. These results have implications for systems using Wikipedia or similar collaborative media platforms as an information source for detecting emergencies or for gathering valuable information for disaster response.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.