Where in the World are You? Geolocation and Language Identification in Twitter
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The movements of ideas and content between locations and languages are unquestionably crucial concerns to researchers of the information age, and Twitter has emerged as a central, global platform on which hundreds of millions of people share knowledge and information. A variety of research has attempted to harvest locational and linguistic metadata from tweets in order to understand important questions related to the 300 million tweets that flow through the platform each day. However, much of this work is carried out with only limited understandings of how best to work with the spatial and linguistic contexts in which the information was produced. Furthermore, standard, well-accepted practices have yet to emerge. As such, this paper studies the reliability of key methods used to determine language and location of content in Twitter. It compares three automated language identification packages to Twitter's user interface language setting and to a human coding of languages in order to identify common sources of disagreement. The paper also demonstrates that in many cases user-entered profile locations differ from the physical locations users are actually tweeting from. As such, these open-ended, user-generated, profile locations cannot be used as useful proxies for the physical locations from which information is published to Twitter.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 3 Aug 2013.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 4; 2022: 0; 2023: 3; 2024: 3; 2025: 1.
11 papers.
- 2024From Languages to Geographies: Towards Evaluating Cultural Bias in Hate Speech Datasetscited by 23
- 2024Implicit Personalization in Language Models: A Systematic Studycited by 18
- 2024HateDay: Insights from a Global Hate Speech Dataset Representative of a Day on Twittercited by 12
- 2021Global Syntactic Variation in Seven Languages: Towards a Computational Dialectologycited by 11
- 2021Representations of Language Varieties Are Reliable Given Corpus Similarity Measurescited by 10
- 2023Leave no Place Behind: Improved Geolocation in Humanitarian Documentscited by 5
- 2021Regionalized models for Spanish language variations based on Twittercited by 4
- 2025WikiGap: Promoting Epistemic Equity by Surfacing Knowledge Gaps Between English Wikipedia and other Language Editionscited by 3
- 2023Bridging Nations: Quantifying the Role of Multilinguals in Communication on Social Mediacited by 2
- 2021Measuring Linguistic Diversity During COVID-19cited by 0
- 2023The Impact of Twitter Sentiments on Stock Market Trendscited by 0
- 2025WikiGap: Promoting Epistemic Equity by Surfacing Knowledge Gaps Between English Wikipedia and other Language Editions30 May 2025
- 2024HateDay: Insights from a Global Hate Speech Dataset Representative of a Day on Twitter23 Nov 2024
- 2024Implicit Personalization in Language Models: A Systematic Study23 May 2024
- 2024From Languages to Geographies: Towards Evaluating Cultural Bias in Hate Speech Datasets27 Apr 2024
- 2023Leave no Place Behind: Improved Geolocation in Humanitarian Documents6 Sep 2023
- 2023Bridging Nations: Quantifying the Role of Multilinguals in Communication on Social Media7 Apr 2023
- 2023The Impact of Twitter Sentiments on Stock Market Trends14 Feb 2023
- 2021Regionalized models for Spanish language variations based on Twitter12 Oct 2021
- 2021Global Syntactic Variation in Seven Languages: Towards a Computational Dialectology3 Apr 2021
- 2021Representations of Language Varieties Are Reliable Given Corpus Similarity Measures3 Apr 2021
- 2021Measuring Linguistic Diversity During COVID-193 Apr 2021