The limits of crisis data: analytical and ethical challenges of using social and mobile data to understand disasters
By Kate Crawford, Megan Finn. 2015
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- Alexandra Olteanu
- Carlos Castillo
- Fernando Diaz
- Fred Morstatter
- Jürgen Pfeffer
- Emre Kıcıman
- Emre Kiciman
- Katja Mayer
Citations in the corpus
- Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries (2019, background): “Research on social data is associated to specific types of harm, of which perhaps the most obvious are privacy breaches (Zimmer, 2010; Crawford and Finn, 2014).”
- “Participant” Perceptions of Twitter Research Ethics (2018, background): “For example, Crawford and Finn (2015) point out that Twitter users may publicly share personal, identifying information of themselves or others during crisis events as a way to find assistance and support.”
- Applications of artificial intelligence for disaster management (2020, background): “Many challenges of practical AI applications to disaster management are due to datarelated issues, such accessibility, completeness, security, privacy, and ethical issues (Boyd and Crawford 2012; Crawford and Finn 2015).”
- Tampering with Twitter’s Sample API (2018, background): “The neglect of cultural differences driving the way users interact with a site distort results [39].”
- A Critical Review of Online Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries (2018, background): “This part will also cover issues such as the incidence of non-humans (spammers, bots, organization accounts) along with “au-thentic” human users [4, 7]), temporal variations (e.g., the “swiss cheese” decay of social media datasets due to content deletions [2]), or content reliability (e.g., rumors).”
- Digital Humanitarians (2017, background): “Concerns about power dynamics, social inequalities, privacy and consent, and knowledge privileged by access to technology (Burns 2015b; Crawford and Finn 2015; Madianou 2015; Martin-Shields 2013) demand attention by digital humanitarian practitioners and academics.”