Biased Priorities, Biased Outcomes: Three Recommendations for Ethics-oriented Data Annotation Practices
Abstract
In this paper, we analyze the relation between data-related biases and practices of data annotation, by placing them in the context of market economy. We understand annotation as a praxis related to the sensemaking of data and investigate annotation practices for vision models by focusing on the values that are prioritized by industrial decision-makers and practitioners. The quality of data is critical for machine learning models as it holds the power to (mis-)represent the population it is intended to analyze. For autonomous systems to be able to make sense of the world, humans first need to make sense of the data these systems will be trained on. This paper addresses this issue, guided by the following research questions: Which goals are prioritized by decision-makers at the data annotation stage? How do these priorities correlate with data-related bias issues? Focusing on work practices and their context, our research goal aims at understanding the logics driving companies and their impact on the performed annotations. The study follows a qualitative design and is based on 24 interviews with relevant actors and extensive participatory observations, including several weeks of fieldwork at two companies dedicated to data annotation for vision models in Buenos Aires, Argentina and Sofia, Bulgaria. The prevalence of market-oriented values over socially responsible approaches is argued based on three corporate priorities that inform work practices in this field and directly sha…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Studies of industry-scale data collection revealed that the pursuit of label precision is often driven by market-oriented values such as objectivity, standardization, and corporate interests.
“studies of industryscale data collection revealed that the pursuit of label precision is often driven by market-oriented values such as objectivity, standardization, and corporate interests [49, 51, 71, 112, 113].”
From Disability-First AI Dataset Annotation: Co-designing Stuttered Speech Annotation Guidelines with People Who Stutter (2026) · cites this paper as [51]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Studying Up Machine Learning Data: Why Talk About Bias When We Mean Power?
Miceli, M., Posada, J., & Yang, T. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3492853 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Self-citationTang, X., Li, J., & Wu, S. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790405 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“For example, studies of industry-scale data collection revealed that the pursuit of label precision is often driven by market-oriented values such as objectivity, standardization, and corporate interests [49, 51, 71, 112, 113].”
- Authors
- Kazimzade, G., & Miceli, M.
- Affiliations
- Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2020-02-07
- Pages
- 71-71
- ISSN
- 3065-8365 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3005511556
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2
- Type
- conference abstract
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (16DII113)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology's Impact on Media
- Keywords
- data annotation, algorithmic bias, data quality, vision models, corporate priorities, market economy, standardization, transparency, AI ethics education, autonomous systems
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