Crowd workers are distributed and decentralized. While decentralization is designed to utilize independent judgment to promote high-quality results, it paradoxically undercuts behaviors and institutions that are critical to high-quality work. Reputation is one central example: crowdsourcing systems depend on reputation scores from decentralized workers and requesters, but these scores are notoriously inflated and uninformative. In this paper, we draw inspiration from historical worker guilds (e.g., in the silk trade) to design and implement crowd guilds: centralized groups of crowd workers who collectively certify each other's quality through double-blind peer assessment. A two-week field experiment compared crowd guilds to a traditional decentralized crowd work model. Crowd guilds produced reputation signals more strongly correlated with ground-truth worker quality than signals available on current crowd working platforms, and more accurate than in the traditional model.
If crowd workers can effectively assess each other, they could bootstrap their own work reputation signals @cite_58 @cite_71 . Worker peer review can scale more readily than external assessment, and leverages a community of practice built up amongst workers with the same expertise @cite_76 . It can also be comparably accurate: peer assessment matches expert assessment in massive open online classes @cite_32 .
@cite_76 @cite_58 @cite_32 @cite_71
2168765606 2131723483 2162815002 2132962756
Micro-task platforms provide massively parallel, on-demand labor. However, it can be difficult to reliably achieve high-quality work because online workers may behave irresponsibly, misunderstand the task, or lack necessary skills. This paper investigates whether timely, task-specific feedback helps crowd workers learn, persevere, and produce better results. We investigate this question through Shepherd, a feedback system for crowdsourced work. In a between-subjects study with three conditions, crowd workers wrote consumer reviews for six products they own. Participants in the None condition received no immediate feedback, consistent with most current crowdsourcing practices. Participants in the Self-assessment condition judged their own work. Participants in the External assessment condition received expert feedback. Self-assessment alone yielded better overall work than the None condition and helped workers improve over time. External assessment also yielded these benefits. Participants who received external assessment also revised their work more. We conclude by discussing interaction and infrastructure approaches for integrating real-time assessment into online work. In modern crowdsourcing markets, requesters face the challenge of training and managing large transient workforces. Requesters can hire peer workers to review others' work, but the value may be marginal, especially if the reviewers lack requisite knowledge. Our research explores if and how workers learn and improve their performance in a task domain by serving as peer reviewers. Further, we investigate whether peer reviewing may be more effective in teams where the reviewers can reach consensus through discussion. An online between-subjects experiment compares the trade-offs of reviewing versus producing work using three different organization strategies: working individually, working as an interactive team, and aggregating individuals into nominal groups. The results show that workers who review others' work perform better on subsequent tasks than workers who just produce. We also find that interactive reviewer teams outperform individual reviewers on all quality measures. However, aggregating individual reviewers into nominal groups produces better quality assessments than interactive teams, except in task domains where discussion helps overcome individual misconceptions. Crowdsourcing has recently become popular among machine learning researchers and social scientists as an effective way to collect large-scale experimental data from distributed workers. To extract useful information from the cheap but potentially unreliable answers to tasks, a key problem is to identify reliable workers as well as unambiguous tasks. Although for objective tasks that have one correct answer per task, previous works can estimate worker reliability and task clarity based on the single gold standard assumption, for tasks that are subjective and accept multiple reasonable answers that workers may be grouped into, a phenomenon called schools of thought, existing models cannot be trivially applied. In this work, we present a statistical model to estimate worker reliability and task clarity without resorting to the single gold standard assumption. This is instantiated by explicitly characterizing the grouping behavior to form schools of thought with a rank-1 factorization of a worker-task groupsize matrix. Instead of performing an intermediate inference step, which can be expensive and unstable, we present an algorithm to analytically compute the sizes of different groups. We perform extensive empirical studies on real data collected from Amazon Mechanical Turk. Our method discovers the schools of thought, shows reasonable estimation of worker reliability and task clarity, and is robust to hyperparameter changes. Furthermore, our estimated worker reliability can be used to improve the gold standard prediction for objective tasks. Online labor markets, such as Amazon's Mechanical Turk, have been used to crowdsource simple, short tasks like image labeling and transcription. However, expert knowledge is often lacking in such markets, making it impossible to complete certain classes of tasks. In this work we introduce an alternative mechanism for crowdsourcing tasks that require specialized knowledge or skill: communitysourcing --- the use of physical kiosks to elicit work from specific populations. We investigate the potential of communitysourcing by designing, implementing and evaluating Umati: the communitysourcing vending machine. Umati allows users to earn credits by performing tasks using a touchscreen attached to the machine. Physical rewards (in this case, snacks) are dispensed through traditional vending mechanics. We evaluated whether communitysourcing can accomplish expert work by using Umati to grade Computer Science exams. We placed Umati in a university Computer Science building, targeting students with grading tasks for snacks. Over one week, 328 unique users (302 of whom were students) completed 7771 tasks (7240 by students). 80 of users had never participated in a crowdsourcing market before. We found that Umati was able to grade exams with 2 higher accuracy (at the same price) or at 33 lower cost (at equivalent accuracy) than traditional single-expert grading. Mechanical Turk workers had no success grading the same exams. These results indicate that communitysourcing can successfully elicit high-quality expert work from specific communities.