copyrighteous

Note: I have not published blog posts about my academic papers over the past few years. To ensure that my blog contains a more comprehensive record of my published papers and to surface them for folks who missed them, I will periodically (re) publish blog posts about some “older” published projects. This post draws material from a previously published post by Kaylea Champion on the Community Data Science Blog.

Taboo subjects—such as sexuality and mental health—are as important to discuss as they are difficult to raise in conversation. Although many people turn to online resources for information on taboo subjects, censorship and low-quality information are common in search results. In two papers I recently published at CSCW—both led by Kaylea Champion—we presented a series of analyses showing how taboo shapes the process of collaborative knowledge building on English Wikipedia.

The first study is a quantitative analysis showing that articles on taboo subjects are much more popular and are the subject of more vandalism than articles on non-taboo topics. In surprising news, we also found that they were edited more often and were of higher quality!

The first challenge we faced in conducting this work was identifying taboo articles. Kaylea had a brilliant idea for a new computational approach to doing so without relying on our individual intuitions about what qualifies as taboo (something we understood would be highly specific to our own culture, class, etc). Her approach was to make use of an insight from linguistics: people develop euphemisms as ways to talk about taboos (i.e., think about all the euphemisms we’ve devised for death, or sex, or menstruation, or mental health).

We used this insight to build a new machine-learning classifier based on English Wiktionary definitions. If a ‘sense’ of a word was tagged as euphemistic, we treated the words in the definition as indicators of taboo. The end result was a series of words and phrases that most powerfully differentiate taboo from non-taboo. We then did a simple match between those words and phrases and the titles of Wikipedia articles. The topics were taboo enough that we were a little uncomfortable discussing them in our meetings! We built a comparison sample of articles whose titles are words that, like our taboo articles, appear in Wiktionary definitions.

In the first paper, we used this new dataset to test a series of hypotheses about how taboo shapes collaborative production in Wikipedia. Our initial hypotheses were based on the idea that taboo information is often in high demand but that Wikipedians might be reluctant to associate their names (or usernames) with taboo topics. The result, we argued, would be articles that were in high demand but of low quality.

We found that taboo articles are thriving on Wikipedia! In summary, we found that in comparison to non-taboo articles:

• Taboo articles are more popular (as expected).
• Taboo articles receive more contributions (contrary to expectations).
• Taboo articles receive more low-quality contributions (as expected).
• Taboo articles are higher quality (contrary to expectations).
• Taboo article contributors are more likely to contribute without an account (as expected), and have less experience (as expected), but that accountholders are more likely to make themselves more identifiable by having a user page, disclosing their gender, and making themselves emailable (all three of these are contrary to expectation!).

Kaylea attempted to understand these somewhat confusing results by designing a fantastic mixed-methods analysis that sought to unpack some of the nuance missing in the quantitative analysis by delving deep into the “life histories” of four articles on English Wikipedia: two on taboo topics related to women’s anatomy (Clitoris and Menstration) and two nontaboo articles chosen for comparison (Cell membrance and Philip Pullman).

Although the findings from the analysis can be difficult to summarize succinctly (as with many qualitative studies), we showed how the taboo example articles’ success was hard-won amid real challenges and attacks. The paper describes how challenges were overcome through resilient leadership, often provided by a single dedicated individual. The paper provides a template for how taboo can be—and frequently is—overcome by dedicated Wikipedians in ways that provide useful knowledge resources in real demand.

For more details, visualizations, statistics, and more, we hope you’ll take a look at our papers, both linked below.

The full citation for the papers are: (1) Champion, Kaylea, and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2023. “Taboo and Collaborative Knowledge Production: Evidence from Wikipedia.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7 (CSCW2): 299:1-299:25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610090. (2) Champion, Kaylea, and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2024. “Life Histories of Taboo Knowledge Artifacts.” Proceedings of the ACM: Human-Computer Interaction 8 (CSCW2): 505:1-505:32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3687044.

We have also released replication materials for the paper, including all the data and code used to conduct the analyses.

This blog post and the paper it describes are collaborative work by Kaylea Champion and Benjamin Mako Hill.

Note: I have not published blog posts about my academic papers over the past few years. To ensure that my blog contains a more comprehensive record of my published papers and to surface these for folks who missed them, I will be periodically (re)publishing blog posts about some “older” published projects.

It seems natural to think of online communities competing for the time and attention of their participants. Over the last few years, I’ve worked with a team of collaborators—led by Nathan TeBlunthuis—to use mathematical and statistical techniques from ecology to understand these dynamics. What we’ve found surprised us: competition between online communities is rare and typically short-lived.

When we started this research, we figured competition would be most likely among communities discussing similar topics. As a first step, we identified clusters of such communities on Reddit. One surprising thing we noticed in our Reddit data was that many of these communities that used similar language also had very high levels of overlap among their users. This was puzzling: why were the same groups of people talking to each other about the same things in different places? And why don’t they appear to be in competition with each other for their users’ time and activity?

We didn’t know how to answer this question using quantitative methods. As a result, we recruited and interviewed 20 active participants in clusters of highly related subreddits with overlapping user bases (for example, one cluster was focused on vintage audio).

We found that the answer to the puzzle lay in the fact that the people we talked to were looking for three distinct things from the communities they worked in:

1. The ability to connect to specific information and narrowly scoped discussions.
2. The ability to socialize with people who are similar to themselves.
3. Attention from the largest possible audience.

Critically, we also found that these three things represented a “trilemma,” and that no single community can meet all three needs. You might find two of the three in a single community, but you could never have all three.

The end result is something I recognize in how I engage with online communities on platforms like Reddit. People tend to engage with a portfolio of communities that vary in size, specialization, topical focus, and rules. Compared with any single community, such overlapping systems can provide a wider range of benefits. No community can do everything.

This work was published as a paper at CSCW: TeBlunthuis, Nathan, Charles Kiene, Isabella Brown, Laura (Alia) Levi, Nicole McGinnis, and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2022. “No Community Can Do Everything: Why People Participate in Similar Online Communities.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6 (CSCW1): 61:1-61:25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512908.

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (awards IIS-1908850, IIS-1910202, and GRFP-2016220885). A full list of acknowledgements is in the paper.

Note: I have not published blog posts about my academic papers over the past few years. To ensure that my blog contains a more comprehensive record of my published papers and to surface these for folks who missed them, I will be periodically (re)publishing blog posts about some “older” published projects. This post is closely based on a previously published post by Kaylea Champion on the Community Data Science Blog.

One popular approach to protecting our privacy online is to use the Tor network. Tor protects users from being identified by their IP address, which can be tied to a physical location. However, if you’d like to contribute to Wikipedia using Tor, you’ll run into a problem. Although most IP addresses can edit without an account, Tor users are blocked from editing.

Other research by my team has shown that Wikipedia’s attempt to block Tor is imperfect and that some people have been able to edit despite the ban. As part of this work, we built a dataset of more than 11,000 contributions to Wikipedia via Tor and used quantitative analysis to show that contributions from Tor were of about the same quality as contributions from other new editors and other contributors without accounts. Of course, given the unusual circumstances Tor-based contributors face, we wondered whether a deeper look at the content of their edits might reveal more about their motives and the kinds of contributions they seek to make. Kaylea Champion (then a student, now faculty at UW Bothell) led a qualitative investigation to explore these questions.

Given the challenges of studying anonymity seekers, we designed a novel “forensic” qualitative approach inspired by techniques common in computer security and criminal investigation. We applied this new technique to a sample of 500 editing sessions and categorized each session based on what the editor seemed to be intending to do.

Most of the contributions we found fell into one of the two following categories:

• Many contributions were quotidian attempts to add to the encyclopedia. Tor-based editors added facts, fixed typos, and updated train schedules. There’s no way to know whether these individuals knew they were just getting lucky in their ability to edit or were patiently reloading to evade the ban.
• Second, we found harassing comments and vandalism. Unwelcome conduct is common in online environments, and it is sometimes more common when the likelihood of being identified decreases. Some of the harassing comments we observed were direct responses to being banned as a Tor user.

Although these were most of what we observed, we also found evidence of several types of contributor intent:

• We observed activism: when a contributor tried to draw attention to journalistic accounts of environmental and human rights abuses committed by a mining company, only to have editors linked to the mining company repeatedly remove their edits. Another example involved an editor trying to diminish the influence of proponents of alternative medicine.
• We also observed quality maintenance activities when editors used Wikipedia’s rules on appropriate sourcing to remove personal websites being cited in conspiracy theories.
• We saw edit wars with Tor editors participating in a back-and-forth removal and replacement of content as part of a dispute, in some cases countering the work of an experienced Wikipedia editor whom even other experienced editors had gauged to be biased.
• Finally, we saw Tor-based editors participating in non-article discussions, such as investigations into administrator misconduct and protests against the Wikipedia platform’s mistrust of Tor editors.

In all, these themes led us to reflect on how the risks individuals face when contributing to online communities sometimes diverge from the risks the communities face in accepting their work. Expressing minoritized perspectives, maintaining community standards even when you may be targeted by the rulebreaker, highlighting injustice, or acting as a whistleblower can be very risky for an individual, and may not be possible without privacy protections. Of course, in platforms seeking to support the public good, such knowledge and accountability may be crucial.

This work was published as a paper at CSCW: Kaylea Champion, Nora McDonald, Stephanie Bankes, Joseph Zhang, Rachel Greenstadt, Andrea Forte, and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2019. A Forensic Qualitative Analysis of Contributions to Wikipedia from Anonymity Seeking Users. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 3, CSCW, Article 53 (November 2019), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359155

This project was conducted by Kaylea Champion, Nora McDonald, Stephanie Bankes, Joseph Zhang, Rachel Greenstadt, Andrea Forte, and Benjamin Mako Hill. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (awards CNS-1703736 and CNS-1703049) and included the work of two undergraduates supported through an NSF REU supplement.

Note: I have not published blog posts about my academic papers over the past few years. To ensure that my blog contains a more comprehensive record of my published papers and to surface these for folks who missed them, I will be periodically (re)publishing blog posts about some “older” published projects. This particular post is closely based on a previously published post by Nate TeBlunthuis from the Community Data Science Blog.

Many online platforms are adopting AI and machine learning as a tool to maintain order and high-quality information in the face of massive influxes of user-generated content. Of course, AI algorithms can be inaccurate, biased, or unfair. How do signals from AI predictions shape the fairness of online content moderation? How can we measure an algorithmic flagging system’s effects?

In our paper published at CSCW, Nate TeBlunthuis, together with myself and Aaron Halfaker, analyzed the RCFilters system: an add-on to Wikipedia that highlights and filters edits that a machine learning algorithm called ORES identifies as likely to be damaging to Wikipedia. This system has been deployed on large Wikipedia language editions and is similar to other algorithmic flagging systems that are becoming increasingly widespread. Our work measures the causal effect of being flagged in the RCFilters user interface.

Our work takes advantage of the fact that RCFilters, like many algorithmic flagging systems, create discontinuities in the relationship between the probability that a moderator should take action and whether a moderator actually does. This happens because the output of machine learning systems like ORES is typically a continuous score (in RCFilters, an estimated probability that a Wikipedia edit is damaging), while the flags (in RCFilters, the yellow, orange, or red highlights) are either on or off and are triggered when the score crosses some arbitrary threshold. As a result, edits slightly above the threshold are both more visible to moderators and appear more likely to be damaging than edits slightly below. Even though edits on either side of the threshold have virtually the same likelihood of truly being damaging, the flagged edits are substantially more likely to be reverted. This fact lets us use a method called regression discontinuity to make causal estimates of the effect of being flagged in RCFilters.

To understand how this system may affect the fairness of Wikipedia moderation, we estimate the effects of flagging on edits on different groups of editors. Comparing the magnitude of these estimates lets us measure how flagging is associated with several different definitions of fairness. Surprisingly, we found evidence that these flags improved fairness for categories of editors that have been widely perceived as troublesome—particularly unregistered (anonymous) editors. This occurred because flagging has a much stronger effect on edits by the registered than on edits by the unregistered.

We believe that our results are driven by the fact that algorithmic flags are especially helpful for finding damage that can’t be easily detected otherwise. Wikipedia moderators can see the editor’s registration status in the recent changes, watchlists, and edit history. Because unregistered editors are often troublesome, Wikipedia moderators’ attention is often focused on their contributions, with or without algorithmic flags. Algorithmic flags make damage by registered editors (in addition to unregistered editors) much more detectable to moderators and so help moderators focus on damage overall, not just damage by suspicious editors. As a result, the algorithmic flagging system decreases the bias that moderators have against unregistered editors.

This finding is particularly surprising because the ORES algorithm we analyzed was itself demonstrably biased against unregistered editors (i.e., the algorithm tended to greatly overestimate the probability that edits by these editors were damaging). Despite the fact that the algorithms were biased, their introduction could still lead to less biased outcomes overall.

Our work shows that although it is important to design predictive algorithms to avoid such biases, it is equally important to study fairness at the level of the broader sociotechnical system. Since we first published a preprint of our paper, a follow-up piece by Leijie Wang and Haiyi Zhu replicated much of our work and showed that differences between different Wikipedia communities may be another important factor driving the effect of the system. Overall, this work suggests that social signals and social context can interact with algorithmic signals, and together these can influence behavior in important and unexpected ways.

The full citation for the paper is: TeBlunthuis, Nathan, Benjamin Mako Hill, and Aaron Halfaker. 2021. “Effects of Algorithmic Flagging on Fairness: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from Wikipedia.” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5 (CSCW): 56:1-56:27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449130.

We have also released replication materials for the paper, including all the data and code used to conduct the analysis and compile the paper itself.