Cited by 77Ethics and Social Impacts of AIWikis in Education and CollaborationInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Keeping Community in the Loop: Understanding Wikipedia Stakeholder Values for Machine Learning-Based Systems

Open access
Smith, C. Estelle, Yu, Bowen, Srivastava, Anjali, Halfaker, Aaron, Terveen, Loren, Zhu, Haiyi·2020·Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

On Wikipedia, sophisticated algorithmic tools are used to assess the quality of edits and take corrective actions. However, algorithms can fail to solve the problems they were designed for if they conflict with the values of communities who use them. In this study, we take a Value-Sensitive Algorithm Design approach to understanding a community-created and -maintained machine learning-based algorithm called the Objective Revision Evaluation System (ORES)---a quality prediction system used in numerous Wikipedia applications and contexts. Five major values converged across stakeholder groups that ORES (and its dependent applications) should: (1) reduce the effort of community maintenance, (2) maintain human judgement as the final authority, (3) support differing peoples' differing workflows, (4) encourage positive engagement with diverse editor groups, and (5) establish trustworthiness of people and algorithms within the community. We reveal tensions between these values and discuss implications for future research to improve algorithms like ORES.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3313831.3376783

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. R. Stuart Geiger. 2011. The lives of bots. In Critical point of view: a Wikipedia reader, Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz (Eds.). Number 7 in INC Reader. Inst. of Network Cultures, Amsterdam, 78-93. http: //stuartgeiger.com/lives-of-bots-wikipedia-cpov.pdf OCLC: 762034235.
  2. Aaron Halfaker, R Stuart Geiger, Jonathan T Morgan, Amir Sarabadani, and Adam Wight. 2018. ORES: Facilitating re-mediation of Wikipedia's socio-technical problems. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW) (2018).
  3. Tom Simonite. 2013. The decline of Wikipedia. Technology Review 116, 6 (2013), 50-56.
  4. Lauren Weber and RE Silverman. 2012. Your resume vs. oblivion. The Wall Street Journal 24 (2012).
  5. Wikipedia. 2019. Help:New filters for edit review/Quality and Intent Filters -MediaWiki. (2019). https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:New_filters_for_ edit_review/Quality_and_Intent_Filters

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, C. E., Yu, B., Srivastava, A., Halfaker, A., Terveen, L., & Zhu, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Wikimedia Foundation (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2020-04-21
Pages
1-14
OpenAlex
W2998862821
Cited by
77
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
FWCI
12.97
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (IIS-2001851,IIS-2000782,IIS-1939606)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Wikis in Education and Collaboration
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
Wikipedia, ore rock, stakeholder value, community values, algorithmic trust, community participation, algorithmic bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review