Numbeo crime index can be subjective and misleading

I am writing to address the recent article titled “Manila crime rate rises: Worst in Southeast Asia—Numbeo Crime Index,” (Inquirer.net, 10/30/24) by Antonio Iñares, which while it raises important issues regarding crime in Manila, it relies heavily on the Numbeo Crime Index. While this index can provide some insights, there are significant concerns regarding its reliability and the implications of relying on a single source for such critical information.

Numbeo is a crowdsourced platform that is not peer-reviewed and can be altered by anyone with internet access. This means that the information presented can be subjective and potentially misleading. For instance, in 2017, a user manipulated crime statistics for Lund, Sweden, causing it to appear as the most dangerous city in the world based solely on negative ratings submitted during a time of low data volume. Such incidents highlight the inherent vulnerabilities in relying on crowdsourced data for serious assessments of public safety.

Moreover, the methodology used by Numbeo to compile its crime index has faced criticism from academics and media alike. The index is derived from user surveys that do not represent a statistically valid sample of the population. Experts have pointed out that this approach fails to provide an accurate picture of crime rates and can lead to erroneous conclusions about which cities are truly the most dangerous.

Additionally, while the article contrasts current crime rates with those during former mayor Isko Moreno’s administration, it does not consider broader contextual factors such as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the extended lockdowns that affected the entire country in 2020. These unprecedented circumstances likely influenced both crime patterns and public perceptions of safety.

It is crucial to recognize that poorly thought-out articles can be just as damaging as outright fake news. When media outlets present information without sufficient context or critical analysis, they risk perpetuating misinformation and fostering fear among the public. This not only undermines trust in journalism but also distracts from constructive discussions about public safety and community well-being.

Arthur Bhenedict King,

laywer