skip to main content
10.1145/3038912.3052591acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Ex Machina: Personal Attacks Seen at Scale

Published:03 April 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

The damage personal attacks cause to online discourse motivates many platforms to try to curb the phenomenon. However, understanding the prevalence and impact of personal attacks in online platforms at scale remains surprisingly difficult. The contribution of this paper is to develop and illustrate a method that combines crowdsourcing and machine learning to analyze personal attacks at scale. We show an evaluation method for a classifier in terms of the aggregated number of crowd-workers it can approximate. We apply our methodology to English Wikipedia, generating a corpus of over 100k high quality human-labeled comments and 63M machine-labeled ones from a classifier that is as good as the aggregate of 3 crowd-workers, as measured by the area under the ROC curve and Spearman correlation. Using this corpus of machine-labeled scores, our methodology allows us to explore some of the open questions about the nature of online personal attacks. This reveals that the majority of personal attacks on Wikipedia are not the result of a few malicious users, nor primarily the consequence of allowing anonymous contributions from unregistered users.

References

  1. J. Bergstra and Y. Bengio. Random search for hyper-parameter optimization. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 13:281--305, Feb. 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. M. Buhrmester, T. Kwang, and S. D. Gosling. Amazon's mechanical turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on psychological science, 6(1):3--5, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. J. Cheng, C. Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and J. Leskovec. Antisocial behavior in online discussion communities. In ICWSM, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. K. Dinakar, R. Reichart, and H. Lieberman. Modeling the detection of textual cyberbullying. The Social Mobile Web, 11:02, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. M. Duggan. Online harassment. Pew Research Center, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Fundacion Barcelona Media (FBM). Caw 2.0 training datasets, 2009. http://caw2.barcelonamedia.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. I. Gagliardone, D. Gal, T. Alves, and G. Martinez. Countering online hate speech. UNESCO Publishing, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. A. Halfaker. mwdiffs. https://github.com/mediawiki-utilities/python-mwdiffs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. A. F. Hayes and K. Krippendorff. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication methods and measures, 1(1):77--89, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Impermium. Detecting insults in social commentary dataset, 2012. https://www.kaggle.com/c/detecting-insults-in-social-commentary.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. K. Krippendorff. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. K. Krippendorff. Reliability in content analysis. Human communication research, 30(3):411--433, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. I. Kwok and Y. Wang. Locate the hate: Detecting tweets against blacks. In AAAI, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. M. J. Moore, T. Nakano, A. Enomoto, and T. Suda. Anonymity and roles associated with aggressive posts in an online forum. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3):861--867, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. C. Nobata, J. Tetreault, A. Thomas, Y. Mehdad, and Y. Chang. Abusive language detection in online user content. In WWW, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. B. Pang and L. Lee. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and trends in information retrieval, 2(1--2):1--135, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. S. Pieschl, C. Kuhlmann, and T. Porsch. Beware of publicity! perceived distress of negative cyber incidents and implications for defining cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence, 14(1):111--132, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. B. Plank, D. Hovy, and A. Søgaard. Learning part-of-speech taggers with inter-annotator agreement loss. In EACL, pages 742--751, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. H. M. Saleem, K. P. Dillon, S. Benesch, and D. Ruths. A web of hate: Tackling hateful speech in online social spaces. In TA-COS, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. A. Schrock and D. Boyd. Problematic youth interaction online: Solicitation, harassment, and cyberbullying. Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal Relationships, pages 368--398, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. S. O. Sood, E. F. Churchill, and J. Antin. Automatic identification of personal insults on social news sites. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2):270--285, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. N. Spirin and J. Han. Survey on web spam detection: principles and algorithms. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 13(2):50--64, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Support and Safety Team. Harassment Survey. Wikimedia Foundation, 2015. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Harassment_Survey_2015_-_Results_Report.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. J. R. Tetreault, E. Filatova, and M. Chodorow. Rethinking grammatical error annotation and evaluation with the amazon mechanical turk. In NAACL-HLT, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. R. S. Tokunaga. Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in human behavior, 26(3):277--287, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. M. A. Walker, J. E. F. Tree, P. Anand, R. Abbott, and J. King. A corpus for research on deliberation and debate. In LREC, pages 812--817, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. W. Warner and J. Hirschberg. Detecting hate speech on the world wide web. In LSM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Z. Waseem and D. Hovy. Hateful symbols or hateful people? predictive features for hate speech detection on twitter. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, pages 88--93, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. D. Wiener. Negligent publication of statements posted on electronic bulletin boards: Is there any liability left after zeran. Santa Clara L. Rev., 39:905, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Wikimedia. Harassment consultation 2015. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Harassment_consultation_2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Wikimedia. Machine-learning tool to reduce toxic talk page interactions. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Bots_and_gadgets#Machine-learning_tool_to_reduce_toxic_talk_page_interactions.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Wikipedia. Help:Talk pages. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Talk_pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Wikipedia. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Revision_deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. N. E. Willard. Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of online social aggression, threats, and distress. Research Press, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. E. Wulczyn, N. Thain, and L. Dixon. https://figshare.com/articles/Wikipedia_Detox_Data/4054689.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. G. Xiang, B. Fan, L. Wang, J. Hong, and C. Rose. Detecting offensive tweets via topical feature discovery over a large scale twitter corpus. In CIKM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. J.-M. Xu, B. Burchfiel, X. Zhu, and A. Bellmore. An examination of regret in bullying tweets. In HLT-NAACL, pages 697--702, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. M. L. Ybarra and K. J. Mitchell. Youth engaging in online harassment: Associations with caregiver--child relationships, internet use, and personal characteristics. Journal of adolescence, 27(3):319--336, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. D. Yin, Z. Xue, L. Hong, B. D. Davison, A. Kontostathis, and L. Edwards. Detection of harassment on web 2.0. In WWW, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Ex Machina: Personal Attacks Seen at Scale

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        WWW '17: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web
        April 2017
        1678 pages
        ISBN:9781450349130

        Copyright © 2017 Copyright is held by the International World Wide Web Conference Committee (IW3C2).

        Publisher

        International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee

        Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland

        Publication History

        • Published: 3 April 2017

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        WWW '17 Paper Acceptance Rate164of966submissions,17%Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader