pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.09408 · v1 · pith:WFAWIEKAnew · submitted 2026-06-08 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.AI· cs.HC

Can Data Work be Reparative?

Srravya Chandhiramowuli , Ding Wang , Alex Taylor This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 15:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY cs.AIcs.HC
keywords data workreparative justiceAI datasetsaccountabilitycivic technologyonline safetyfeminist approachesethnography
0
0 comments X

The pith

Repairing data work and AI requires resetting the ties of accountability between workers and the systems they produce.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines a civic-tech effort that builds online safety datasets by working directly with people most affected by harms, using a feminist lens to treat data production as a site of repair and redress. It traces practical struggles around fair compensation for contributors and shared control over how datasets are governed. Through this case, the authors conclude that true repair hinges on changing who is answerable to whom, rather than adding more technical fixes like evaluations. If correct, this shifts focus from datasets or models to the human relationships that sustain them. The argument matters because it questions whether current responsible-AI practices can succeed without addressing those foundational relations.

Core claim

An ethnographic study of one feminist civic-tech initiative shows that attempts to make dataset production reparative run into persistent tensions over just reward and collective governance. Applying a lens of reparative justice, the authors conclude that the essential work of repair lies in resetting the ties of accountability so that those most harmed by online harms and data practices become central to how datasets and AI systems are produced and used.

What carries the argument

Resetting the ties of accountability, the mechanism that reorients data work away from prevailing norms and toward those most harmed by exclusion and oversight.

If this is right

  • Dataset production must treat fair compensation and shared decision-making as non-negotiable rather than optional add-ons.
  • AI safety efforts such as red teaming or evaluations cannot substitute for changes in how data workers relate to the outputs they create.
  • Responsibility frameworks need to place people harmed by current data practices at the center instead of treating datasets as neutral resources.
  • Alternative futures for AI require interrupting standard modes of dataset creation that rely on neglect or exclusion.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same accountability reset might apply to data work in domains other than online safety, such as medical or environmental datasets.
  • Policy or funding requirements could be designed to enforce direct accountability links between affected communities and dataset owners.
  • New organizational forms, such as community-controlled data trusts, could be tested as concrete ways to enact the reset described.

Load-bearing premise

That patterns observed in one civic-tech project can be taken as evidence that resetting accountability is the fundamental requirement for reparative data work in general.

What would settle it

A follow-up case in which a project successfully resets accountability relations between data contributors and dataset users yet still fails to deliver measurable repair or redress for the communities involved.

read the original abstract

We present an ethnographic study of an alternative approach to data work, developed by a civic-tech initiative that builds datasets for training and benchmarking online safety systems. They aim to respond to online safety concerns from a feminist perspective, by building safety datasets collaboratively with those most impacted by online harms. In this paper, we examine how this approach aims to reorient data work as a site for repair and redress, and trace the struggles they encounter in the process. Specifically, we draw attention to the challenges and tensions involved in advancing just reward for data work and collective governance of AI datasets. Examining these challenges through an STS-informed lens of reparative justice and repair, we argue that the work of repairing data work (and AI) lies, fundamentally, in resetting the ties of accountability. At a time heightened emphasis on efforts like safety evaluations and red teaming to make AI more responsible, we highlight the need to confront foundational questions about how the humans involved in these efforts relate to the datasets and systems they help produce. A reparative lens demands that we interrupt prevailing norms of data work and place at their centre, not AI or datasets, but those most harmed by the neglect, oversight and exclusion animated in the current modes of dataset production. This, we argue, offers a bold vision for responsibility and contributes towards a critical agenda for building alternative futures of data and AI practice.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an ethnographic study of a civic-tech initiative that constructs safety datasets for online safety AI systems from a feminist perspective by collaborating with impacted communities. It identifies tensions in achieving just rewards for data contributors and establishing collective governance, then applies an STS-informed reparative justice and repair lens to argue that the fundamental work of repairing data work (and AI) consists in resetting accountability ties, rather than centering AI or datasets, and calls for interrupting prevailing norms to prioritize those harmed by current dataset production practices.

Significance. If the interpretive argument holds with adequate empirical grounding, the paper contributes to critical data/AI ethics scholarship by extending reparative justice concepts from STS to dataset labor, offering a relational alternative to technical responsibility mechanisms like evaluations and red teaming. It highlights human relations in data production as a site for redress and could inform alternative futures in responsible AI, though its single-case basis constrains claims to broader applicability.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The load-bearing claim that 'the work of repairing data work (and AI) lies, fundamentally, in resetting the ties of accountability' is advanced from observations of challenges in just reward and collective governance within one civic-tech initiative, but the text provides no data excerpts, participant quotes, or analytic steps showing why accountability reset is primary and structural rather than contingent on the feminist safety-dataset context.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and discussion sections: The argument draws on STS reparative-justice literature to frame the case study and then uses the case to advocate the lens as foundational, without independent comparative cases, scope conditions, or falsification criteria that would secure the generalization from this instance to a field-wide requirement for resetting accountability across AI dataset production.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a brief statement of the study's ethnographic methods (e.g., duration, number of participants, analytic approach) to allow readers to assess the evidential basis for the traced challenges.
  2. Notation and terminology: 'Data work' and 'reparative justice' are used without initial definitional anchors, which may reduce accessibility for readers outside STS.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive feedback. We address each major comment below, indicating planned revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The load-bearing claim that 'the work of repairing data work (and AI) lies, fundamentally, in resetting the ties of accountability' is advanced from observations of challenges in just reward and collective governance within one civic-tech initiative, but the text provides no data excerpts, participant quotes, or analytic steps showing why accountability reset is primary and structural rather than contingent on the feminist safety-dataset context.

    Authors: The full manuscript presents detailed ethnographic observations across multiple sections on just reward and collective governance, including participant quotes and step-by-step analytic interpretations that trace how observed tensions originate in misaligned accountability structures rather than the specific feminist framing. The abstract, as a concise summary, omits direct excerpts. We will revise the abstract to more explicitly signal the empirical grounding and structural character of the argument. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and discussion sections: The argument draws on STS reparative-justice literature to frame the case study and then uses the case to advocate the lens as foundational, without independent comparative cases, scope conditions, or falsification criteria that would secure the generalization from this instance to a field-wide requirement for resetting accountability across AI dataset production.

    Authors: As a single-case ethnographic study, the contribution lies in developing an interpretive lens through close analysis of one initiative, consistent with STS traditions of theory-building from situated data. The paper does not assert a universal empirical requirement but argues that the case reveals accountability reset as foundational to reparative data work. We will revise the discussion section to articulate scope conditions and limitations more explicitly. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; interpretive argument grounded in external STS literature and new ethnographic case

full rationale

The paper's central move applies an established STS lens of reparative justice (drawn from prior literature) to interpret challenges observed in one civic-tech dataset initiative, then advances an argument that accountability reset is fundamental. This is a standard theory-application structure rather than a self-referential derivation: the lens is external, the case supplies independent observations, and no equations, fitted parameters, self-citations as load-bearing premises, or definitional loops are present in the abstract or described structure. The 'fundamentally' claim is an interpretive conclusion, not a reduction by construction to the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions from STS literature about reparative justice and repair being applicable to data work; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption STS concepts of repair and reparative justice provide an appropriate lens for analyzing data work in AI safety datasets
    Invoked in the abstract when framing the analysis of challenges in just reward and collective governance.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5775 in / 1214 out tokens · 19592 ms · 2026-06-27T15:03:38.678326+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lora Aroyo, Alex Taylor, Mark Díaz, Christopher Homan, Alicia Parrish, Gregory Serapio-García, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, and Ding Wang. 2023. DICES Dataset: Diversity in Conversational AI Evaluation for Safety.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36 (Dec. 2023), 53330–53342. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/hash/a74b697bce4c...

    2023

  2. [2]

    2019.Captivating Technology Race, Carceral Technoscience, and Liberatory Imagination in Everyday Life.Duke University Press, Durham

    Ruha Benjamin. 2019.Captivating Technology Race, Carceral Technoscience, and Liberatory Imagination in Everyday Life.Duke University Press, Durham

    2019

  3. [3]

    Everybody knows what a pothole is

    S. J. Bennett, Benedetta Catanzariti, and Fabio Tollon. 2025. “Everybody knows what a pothole is”: representations of work and intelligence in AI practice and governance.AI & SOCIETY(2025). doi:10.1007/s00146-024-02162-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s00146-024-02162-0 2025

  4. [4]

    Steven Bird. 2024. Must NLP be Extractive?. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 14915–14929

    2024

  5. [5]

    Abeba Birhane, William Isaac, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Mark Diaz, Madeleine Clare Elish, Iason Gabriel, and Shakir Mohamed. 2022. Power to the People? Opportunities and Challenges for Participatory AI. InProceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, N...

    work page doi:10.1145/3551624.3555290 2022

  6. [6]

    2015.Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness

    Simone Browne. 2015.Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness. Duke University Press. doi:10.1215/9780822375302

    work page doi:10.1215/9780822375302 2015

  7. [7]

    Benedetta Catanzariti. 2025. Taming Affect: On the Construction of Objectivity in Data Annotation Practices.Digital Society4, 2 (May 2025), 40. doi:10.1007/s44206-025-00198-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s44206-025-00198-3 2025

  8. [8]

    Taylor, Sara Heitlinger, and Ding Wang

    Srravya Chandhiramowuli, Alex S. Taylor, Sara Heitlinger, and Ding Wang. 2024. Making Data Work Count.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW1 (April 2024), 90:1–90:26. doi:10.1145/3637367

    work page doi:10.1145/3637367 2024

  9. [9]

    2025.Legal frictions for data openness: Reflections from a case-study on re-use of the open web for AI training

    Ramya Chandrasekhar. 2025.Legal frictions for data openness: Reflections from a case-study on re-use of the open web for AI training. Technical Report. Zenodo. doi:10.5281/zenodo.15579533

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.15579533 2025

  10. [10]

    Jennifer Cobbe, Michael Veale, and Jatinder Singh. 2023. Understanding accountability in algorithmic supply chains. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 1186–1197

    2023

  11. [11]

    Donavyn Coffey. 2021. M¯aori are trying to save their language from Big Tech.Wired(2021). https://www.wired.com/story/maori- language-tech/ Section: tags

    2021

  12. [12]

    Davis, Apryl Williams, and Michael W

    Jenny L. Davis, Apryl Williams, and Michael W. Yang. 2021. Algorithmic reparation.Big Data & Society8, 2 (July 2021), 20539517211044808. doi:10.1177/20539517211044808 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd

    work page doi:10.1177/20539517211044808 2021

  13. [13]

    Maria Puig de la Bellacasa. 2011. Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things.Social Studies of Science41, 1 (Feb. 2011), 85–106. doi:10.1177/0306312710380301 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd

    work page doi:10.1177/0306312710380301 2011

  14. [14]

    Fernando Delgado, Stephen Yang, Michael Madaio, and Qian Yang. 2023. The Participatory Turn in AI Design: Theoretical Foundations and the Current State of Practice. InProceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–23. doi:10.1145/...

    work page doi:10.1145/3617694.3623261 2023

  15. [15]

    Lina Dencik, Arne Hintz, Joanna Redden, and Emiliano Treré. 2025. Collectivity in data governance and data justice. 943–950 pages

    2025

  16. [16]

    Schenck, Ben Rydal Shapiro, and Betsy DiSalvo

    Carl DiSalvo, Annabel Rothschild, Lara L. Schenck, Ben Rydal Shapiro, and Betsy DiSalvo. 2024. When Workers Want to Say No: A View into Critical Consciousness and Workplace Democracy in Data Work.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW1 (April 2024), 156:1–156:24. doi:10.1145/3637433

    work page doi:10.1145/3637433 2024

  17. [17]

    Paul Dourish. 2006. Implications for design. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 541–550. doi:10.1145/1124772.1124855

    work page doi:10.1145/1124772.1124855 2006

  18. [18]

    Mark Díaz, Ian Kivlichan, Rachel Rosen, Dylan Baker, Razvan Amironesei, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, and Emily Denton. 2022. Crowd- WorkSheets: Accounting for Individual and Collective Identities Underlying Crowdsourced Dataset Annotation. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’22). Association for Comput...

    work page doi:10.1145/3531146.3534647 2022

  19. [19]

    Ron Eglash, Kwame P Robinson, Audrey Bennett, Lionel Robert, and Mathew Garvin. 2024. Computational reparations as generative justice: Decolonial transitions to unalienated circular value flow.Big Data & Society11, 1 (March 2024), 20539517231221732. doi:10. 1177/20539517231221732 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd

    2024

  20. [20]

    2025.Fairwork Cloudwork Ratings 2025: Advancing Standards in Digital Labour and AI Supply Chain Governance

    Fairwork. 2025.Fairwork Cloudwork Ratings 2025: Advancing Standards in Digital Labour and AI Supply Chain Governance. Technical Report. https://fair.work/en/fw/publications/cloudwork-report-2025/

    2025

  21. [21]

    Diana E Forsythe. 1993. The construction of work in artificial intelligence.Science, technology, & human values18, 4 (1993), 460–479

    1993

  22. [22]

    Diana E Forsythe. 1993. Engineering knowledge: The construction of knowledge in artificial intelligence.Social studies of science23, 3 (1993), 445–477

    1993

  23. [23]

    Shaona Ghosh, Heather Frase, Adina Williams, Sarah Luger, Paul Röttger, Fazl Barez, Sean McGregor, Kenneth Fricklas, Mala Kumar, Quentin Feuillade-Montixi, Kurt Bollacker, Felix Friedrich, Ryan Tsang, Bertie Vidgen, Alicia Parrish, Chris Knotz, Eleonora Presani, Jonathan Bennion, Marisa Ferrara Boston, Mike Kuniavsky, Wiebke Hutiri, James Ezick, Malek Ben...

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.05731 2025

  24. [24]

    Silberman

    Mark Graham, Jamie Woodcock, Richard Heeks, Paul Mungai, Jean-Paul Van Belle, Darcy du Toit, Sandra Fredman, Abigail Osiki, Anri van der Spuy, and Six M. Silberman. 2020. The Fairwork Foundation: Strategies for improving platform work in a global context. Geoforum112 (June 2020), 100–103. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.01.023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.01.023 2020

  25. [25]

    Gray and Siddharth Suri

    Mary L. Gray and Siddharth Suri. 2019.Ghost Work: How to Stop Silicon Valley from Building a New Global Underclass. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Google-Books-ID: 8AmXDwAAQBAJ

    2019

  26. [26]

    Rafael Grohmann, Andre Campos Rocha, and Guilherme Guilherme. 2025. Worker-led AI governance: Hollywood writers’ strikes and the worker power.Information, Communication & Society0, 0 (2025), 1–19. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2025.2521375 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2025.2521375

    work page doi:10.1080/1369118x.2025.2521375 2025

  27. [27]

    Karen Hao. 2022. A new vision of artificial intelligence for the people.MIT Technology Review(2022). https://www.technologyreview. com/2022/04/22/1050394/artificial-intelligence-for-the-people/

    2022

  28. [28]

    Jackson, Daniela K

    Lara Houston, Steven J. Jackson, Daniela K. Rosner, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, Meg Young, and Laewoo Kang. 2016. Values in Repair. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1403–1414. doi:10.1145/2858036.2858470

    work page doi:10.1145/2858036.2858470 2016

  29. [29]

    2024.Enrolling Citizens: A Primer on Archetypes of Democratic Engagement with AI

    Wanheng Hu and Ranjit Singh. 2024.Enrolling Citizens: A Primer on Archetypes of Democratic Engagement with AI. Technical Report. Data & Society. https://datasociety.net/library/enrolling-citizens-a-primer-on-archetypes-of-democratic-engagement-with-ai/

    2024

  30. [30]

    2023.Safety at Stake: How to Save Meta’s Trusted Partner Program

    Internews. 2023.Safety at Stake: How to Save Meta’s Trusted Partner Program. Technical Report. Internews. https://internews.org/ resource/safety-at-stake-how-to-save-metas-trusted-partner-program/

    2023

  31. [31]

    Steven J. Jackson. 2014. Rethinking Repair. (Jan. 2014). doi:10.7551/mitpress/9042.003.0015

    work page doi:10.7551/mitpress/9042.003.0015 2014

  32. [32]

    Steven J. Jackson. 2023. Ordinary Hope. InEcological Reparation: Repair, Remediation and Resurgence in Social and Environmental Conflict, Dimitris Papadopoulos, Maddalena Tacchetti, and Maria Puig de la Bellacasa (Eds.). Bristol University Press, 417–433. doi:10. 46692/9781529239560.028

    2023

  33. [33]

    Brubaker

    Jialun Aaron Jiang, Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, Casey Fiesler, and Jed R. Brubaker. 2021. Understanding international perceptions of the severity of harmful content online.PLOS ONE16, 8 (Aug. 2021), e0256762. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256762 Publisher: Public Library , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: June 2026. Can Data Work be Reparative?•17 of Science

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256762 2021

  34. [34]

    Shivani Kapania, Alex S Taylor, and Ding Wang. 2023. A hunt for the Snark: Annotator Diversity in Data Practices. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. doi:10.1145/3544548.3580645

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3580645 2023

  35. [35]

    Michael Katell, Meg Young, Dharma Dailey, Bernease Herman, Vivian Guetler, Aaron Tam, Corinne Bintz, Daniella Raz, and P. M. Krafft

  36. [36]

    InProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* ’20)

    Toward situated interventions for algorithmic equity: lessons from the field. InProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 45–55. doi:10.1145/3351095. 3372874

    work page doi:10.1145/3351095 2020

  37. [37]

    Miles Klee. [n. d.]. Grammarly Is Facing a Class Action Lawsuit Over Its AI ‘Expert Review’ Feature — wired.com. https://www.wired. com/story/grammarly-is-facing-a-class-action-lawsuit-over-its-ai-expert-review-feature/. [Accessed 26-03-2026]

    2026

  38. [38]

    Procaccia

    Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Anson Kahng, Ji Tae Kim, Xinran Yuan, Allissa Chan, Daniel See, Ritesh Noothigattu, Siheon Lee, Alexandros Psomas, and Ariel D. Procaccia. 2019. WeBuildAI: Participatory Framework for Algorithmic Governance.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 181:1–181:35. doi:10.1145/3359283

    work page doi:10.1145/3359283 2019

  39. [39]

    Cindy Kaiying Lin and Steven J. Jackson. 2023. From Bias to Repair: Error as a Site of Collaboration and Negotiation in Applied Data Science Work.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.7, CSCW1 (April 2023), 131:1–131:32. doi:10.1145/3579607

    work page doi:10.1145/3579607 2023

  40. [40]

    Te Hiku Media. [n. d.]. TeHikuMedia/Kaitiakitanga-License. https://github.com/TeHikuMedia/Kaitiakitanga-License original-date: 2018-10-02T12:51:01Z

    2018

  41. [41]

    Murukannaiah, and Enrico Liscio

    Michiel van der Meer, Neele Falk, Pradeep K. Murukannaiah, and Enrico Liscio. 2024. Annotator-Centric Active Learning for Subjective NLP Tasks. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.15720 arXiv:2404.15720 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.15720 2024

  42. [42]

    Meta. 2023. Bringing local context to our global standards. https://transparency.meta.com/en-gb/policies/improving/bringing-local- context/

    2023

  43. [43]

    Milagros Miceli, Adio-Adet Dinika, Krystal Kauffman, Camilla Salim Wagner, Laurenz Sachenbacher, Alex Hanna, and Timnit Gebru

  44. [44]

    Methodological Considerations for Centering Workers’ Epistemic Authority in AI Research. (2025). https://data-workers.org/wp- content/uploads/2025/08/DWI_Method_AIES-6.pdf

    2025

  45. [45]

    Milagros Miceli and Julian Posada. 2022. The Data-Production Dispositif.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 460:1–460:37. doi:10.1145/3555561

    work page doi:10.1145/3555561 2022

  46. [46]

    Milagros Miceli, Martin Schuessler, and Tianling Yang. 2020. Between Subjectivity and Imposition: Power Dynamics in Data Annotation for Computer Vision.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4, CSCW2 (Oct. 2020), 115:1–115:25. doi:10.1145/3415186

    work page doi:10.1145/3415186 2020

  47. [47]

    2024.Code dependent: living in the shadow of AI

    Madhumita Murgia. 2024.Code dependent: living in the shadow of AI. Picador, London

    2024

  48. [48]

    Wilhelmina Nekoto, Vukosi Marivate, Tshinondiwa Matsila, Timi Fasubaa, Taiwo Fagbohungbe, Solomon Oluwole Akinola, Shamsuddeen Muhammad, Salomon Kabongo Kabenamualu, Salomey Osei, Freshia Sackey, Rubungo Andre Niyongabo, Ricky Macharm, Perez Ogayo, Orevaoghene Ahia, Musie Meressa Berhe, Mofetoluwa Adeyemi, Masabata Mokgesi-Selinga, Lawrence Okegbemi, Laur...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.195 2020

  49. [49]

    Chijioke Okorie. 2025. It’s the NOODL License – Awesome and Amazingly Geeky! doi:10.2139/ssrn.5339254

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.5339254 2025

  50. [50]

    2024.Licensing African Datasets

    Chijioke Okorie and Melisa Omino. 2024.Licensing African Datasets. Technical Report. https://licensingafricandatasets.com/

    2024

  51. [51]

    2023.Ecological Reparation: Repair, Remediation and Resurgence in Social and Environmental Conflict

    Dimitris Papadopoulos, Maria Puig de la Bellacasa, and Maddalena Tacchetti (Eds.). 2023.Ecological Reparation: Repair, Remediation and Resurgence in Social and Environmental Conflict. Bristol University Press. doi:10.46692/9781529239560

    work page doi:10.46692/9781529239560 2023

  52. [52]

    Dimitris Papadopoulos, Maria Puig de la Bellacasa, and Maddalena Tacchetti. 2023. No Justice, No Ecological Peace: The Groundings of Ecological Reparation. InEcological Reparation: Repair, Remediation and Resurgence in Social and Environmental Conflict. Bristol University Press, 1–16. doi:10.46692/9781529239560.002

    work page doi:10.46692/9781529239560.002 2023

  53. [53]

    Desmond Patton, Philipp Blandfort, William Frey, Michael Gaskell, and Svebor Karaman. 2019. Annotating Social Media Data From Vulnerable Populations: Evaluating Disagreement Between Domain Experts and Graduate Student Annotators.Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2019 (HICSS-52)(Jan. 2019). https://aisel.aisnet.org/hicss-52/dsm/critical_an...

    2019

  54. [54]

    Chelsea Peterson-Salahuddin. 2024. Repairing the harm: Toward an algorithmic reparations approach to hate speech content moderation. Big Data & Society11, 2 (June 2024), 20539517241245333. doi:10.1177/20539517241245333 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd

    work page doi:10.1177/20539517241245333 2024

  55. [55]

    Julian Posada. 2024. Deeply embedded wages: Navigating digital payments in data work.Big Data & Society11, 2 (June 2024), 20539517241242446. doi:10.1177/20539517241242446 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd

    work page doi:10.1177/20539517241242446 2024

  56. [56]

    Tarunima Prabhakar, Cheshta Arora, and Arnav Arora. 2023. Participation in AI: Notes from The Trenches. doi:10.2139/ssrn.5016976 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: June 2026. 18•Chandhiramowuli et al

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.5016976 2023

  57. [57]

    Organizers Of Queerinai, Anaelia Ovalle, Arjun Subramonian, Ashwin Singh, Claas Voelcker, Danica J. Sutherland, Davide Locatelli, Eva Breznik, Filip Klubicka, Hang Yuan, Hetvi J, Huan Zhang, Jaidev Shriram, Kruno Lehman, Luca Soldaini, Maarten Sap, Marc Peter Deisenroth, Maria Leonor Pacheco, Maria Ryskina, Martin Mundt, Milind Agarwal, Nyx Mclean, Pan Xu...

    work page doi:10.1145/3593013.3594134 2023

  58. [58]

    Jenalea Rajab, Anuoluwapo Aremu, Everlyn Asiko Chimoto, Dale Dunbar, Graham Morrissey, Fadel Thior, Luandrie Potgieter, Jessica Ojo, Atnafu Lambebo Tonja, Wilhelmina NdapewaOnyothi Nekoto, et al. 2025. The Esethu Framework: Reimagining Sustainable Dataset Governance and Curation for Low-Resource Languages. InProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the A...

    2025

  59. [59]

    Bogdana Rakova, Renee Shelby, and Megan Ma. 2023. Terms-we-serve-with: Five dimensions for anticipating and repairing algorithmic harm.Big Data & Society10, 2 (July 2023), 20539517231211553. doi:10.1177/20539517231211553 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd

    work page doi:10.1177/20539517231211553 2023

  60. [60]

    Sarah T. Roberts. 2019.Behind the screen: content moderation in the shadows of social media. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. doi:10.12987/9780300245318

    work page doi:10.12987/9780300245318 2019

  61. [61]

    Annabel Rothschild, Ding Wang, Niveditha Jayakumar Vilvanathan, Lauren Wilcox, Carl DiSalvo, and Betsy DiSalvo. 2024. The Problems with Proxies: Making Data Work Visible through Requester Practices.Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society 7, 1 (Oct. 2024), 1255–1268. doi:10.1609/aies.v7i1.31721 Number: 1

    work page doi:10.1609/aies.v7i1.31721 2024

  62. [62]

    Pierrehumbert

    Paul Röttger, Bertie Vidgen, Dirk Hovy, and Janet B. Pierrehumbert. 2022. Two Contrasting Data Annotation Paradigms for Subjective NLP Tasks. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2112.07475 arXiv:2112.07475 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.07475 2022

  63. [63]

    Everyone wants to do the model work, not the data work

    Nithya Sambasivan, Shivani Kapania, Hannah Highfill, Diana Akrong, Praveen Paritosh, and Lora M Aroyo. 2021. “Everyone wants to do the model work, not the data work”: Data Cascades in High-Stakes AI. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. doi:1...

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445518 2021

  64. [64]

    Liang, Ronan Le Bras, Katharina Reinecke, and Maarten Sap

    Sebastin Santy, Jenny T. Liang, Ronan Le Bras, Katharina Reinecke, and Maarten Sap. 2023. NLPositionality: Characterizing Design Biases of Datasets and Models. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2306.01943 arXiv:2306.01943 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.01943 2023

  65. [65]

    Maarten Sap, Swabha Swayamdipta, Laura Vianna, Xuhui Zhou, Yejin Choi, and Noah A. Smith. 2022. Annotators with Attitudes: How Annotator Beliefs And Identities Bias Toxic Language Detection. InProceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Marine Carpuat, Mari...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.431 2022

  66. [66]

    Ali Akbar Septiandri, Marios Constantinides, Mohammad Tahaei, and Daniele Quercia. 2023. WEIRD FAccTs: how western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic is FAccT?. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 160–171

    2023

  67. [67]

    Renée Sieber, Ana Brandusescu, Suthee Sangiambut, and Abigail Adu-Daako. 2024. What is civic participation in artificial intelligence? Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science(Nov. 2024), 23998083241296200. doi:10.1177/23998083241296200 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd STM

    work page doi:10.1177/23998083241296200 2024

  68. [68]

    Tom Simonite. 2021. AI and the List of Dirty, Naughty, Obscene, and Otherwise Bad Words.Wired(2021). https://www.wired.com/ story/ai-list-dirty-naughty-obscene-bad-words/ Section: tags

    2021

  69. [69]

    Anubha Singh, Patricia Garcia, and Priyank Chandra. 2025. What’s in a Place? On Platformization of Traditional Agricultural Marketplaces. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. doi:10.1145/3706598.3714250

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3714250 2025

  70. [70]

    Ranjit Singh and Steven J. Jackson. 2017. From Margins to Seams: Imbrication, Inclusion, and Torque in the Aadhaar Identification Project. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4776–4824. doi:10.1145/3025453.3025910

    work page doi:10.1145/3025453.3025910 2017

  71. [71]

    participation

    Mona Sloane. 2024. Controversies, contradiction, and “participation” in AI.Big Data & Society11, 1 (March 2024), 20539517241235862. doi:10.1177/20539517241235862 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd

    work page doi:10.1177/20539517241235862 2024

  72. [72]

    Mona Sloane, Emanuel Moss, Olaitan Awomolo, and Laura Forlano. 2022. Participation Is not a Design Fix for Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. doi:10.1145/3551624.3555285

    work page doi:10.1145/3551624.3555285 2022

  73. [73]

    Andrew Smart, Ben Hutchinson, Lameck Mbangula Amugongo, Suzanne Dikker, Alex Zito, Amber Ebinama, Zara Wudiri, Ding Wang, Erin van Liemt, João Sedoc, et al. 2024. Socially responsible data for large multilingual language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05247 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    Harini Suresh, Rajiv Movva, Amelia Lee Dogan, Rahul Bhargava, Isadora Cruxen, Angeles Martinez Cuba, Guilia Taurino, Wonyoung So, and Catherine D’Ignazio. 2022. Towards Intersectional Feminist and Participatory ML: A Case Study in Supporting Feminicide Counterdata Collection. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transp...

    work page doi:10.1145/3531146.3533132 2022

  75. [75]

    Harini Suresh, Emily Tseng, Meg Young, Mary Gray, Emma Pierson, and Karen Levy. 2024. Participation in the age of foundation models. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1609–1621. doi:10.1145/3630106.3658992

    work page doi:10.1145/3630106.3658992 2024

  76. [76]

    Taylor and Richard Harper

    Alex S. Taylor and Richard Harper. 2003. The Gift of the Gab?: A Design Oriented Sociology of Young People’s Use of Mobiles.Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)12, 3 (Sept. 2003), 267–296. doi:10.1023/A:1025091532662

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1025091532662 2003

  77. [77]

    Stefan Timmermans and Iddo Tavory. 2012. Theory Construction in Qualitative Research: From Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis. Sociological Theory30, 3 (Sept. 2012), 167–186. doi:10.1177/0735275112457914 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    work page doi:10.1177/0735275112457914 2012

  78. [78]

    2025.The Responsible AI Ecosystem: A BRAID Landscape Study

    Fabio Tollon and Shannon Vallor. 2025.The Responsible AI Ecosystem: A BRAID Landscape Study. Technical Report. Zenodo. doi:10.5281/ zenodo.15195686

    2025

  79. [79]

    Pelle Tracey and Patricia Garcia. 2024. After automation: Homelessness prioritization algorithms and the future of care labor.Big Data & Society11, 1 (March 2024), 20539517241239043. doi:10.1177/20539517241239043 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd

    work page doi:10.1177/20539517241239043 2024

  80. [80]

    Pelle Tracey and Patricia Garcia. 2024. Intermediation: Algorithmic Prioritization in Practice in Homeless Services.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW2 (Nov. 2024), 412:1–412:24. doi:10.1145/3686951

    work page doi:10.1145/3686951 2024

Showing first 80 references.