Milestone 3 taskforce norequesterspam

From crowdresearch
Jump to: navigation, search

1) How can workers trust that the intentions of requesters and their tasks are genuine?

Spamrequester.jpg Figure 1: Interaction between requesters and workers to build trust.

We propose to foster trust between workers and requesters by creating a balance between their interactions.

  • Workers should be allowed to flag requesters in case the task design is flawed in a way that harms participating workers. This would ensure that requesters take precautions to avoid being flagged on one hand, and simultaneously allow workers to build trust towards the requesters on the other hand.
  • Involving both workers and requesters in the task consumption phase reinforces trust by distributing responsibilities. We present such interaction as we envision it in Figure 1.
    • Workers can bid for tasks they are interested in.
    • Requesters can hand-pick the workers they want.
    • This fosters a healthier trust setting.

2) Transparency

An important requirement for trust is being transparent. Being transparent means sharing relevant information that is required to understand the context in which an action takes place. When Turkers were informed that MTurk was not anonymous (Lease et al., 2013) they were not happy about it. Workers claim that they prefer to be anonymous because they have seen or experienced that requesters may discriminate workers when recruiting or accepting/rejecting work. However, we envision the new crowdsourcing platform as a system in which anyone should show their identity, for their own benefit. As we do in the offline world, when we need to identify ourselves to be accountable for our actions. If the information is used in a fair way, being transparent might have many advantages. Workers could show who they are and what they did to requesters. The same could work in the other direction. And workers could also show other workers who they are, leading to a potential collaboration between them (e.g. in forums or via email).

In our approach sharing relevant information (like the identity and the accomplished work) would not meant publishing it openly to the world, but sharing it with the persons of interest (e.g. a particular requesters).

If a requester needed to restrict his task to particular countries for a good reason (e.g. need to study a particular population to compare it with the population of another country), the requester should explain it clearly, so that excluded workers do not feel rejected without a reason. It is all about communication and sharing information.

There is related work that found out that transparency has a positive impact in the results: http://goo.gl/sWaUzN