Measuring the Reliability of Hate Speech Annotations: The Case of the European Refugee Crisis

Abstract

Some users of social media are spreading racist, sexist, and otherwise hateful content. For the purpose of training a hate speech detection system, the reliability of the annotations is crucial, but there is no universally agreed-upon definition. We collected potentially hateful messages and asked two groups of internet users to determine whether they were hate speech or not, whether they should be banned or not and to rate their degree of offensiveness. One of the groups was shown a definition prior to completing the survey. We aimed to assess whether hate speech can be annotated reliably, and the extent to which existing definitions are in accordance with subjective ratings. Our results indicate that showing users a definition caused them to partially align their own opinion with the definition but did not improve reliability, which was very low overall. We conclude that the presence of hate speech should perhaps not be considered a binary yes-or-no decision, and raters need more detailed instructions for the annotation.

Cited by in corpus (10)

• Hate Towards the Political Opponent: A Twitter Corpus Study of the 2020 US Elections on the Basis of Offensive Speech and Stance Detection
• Human-in-the-Loop for Data Collection: a Multi-Target Counter Narrative Dataset to Fight Online Hate Speech
• Detecting Hate Speech in Social Media
• Whose Opinions Matter? Perspective-aware Models to Identify Opinions of Hate Speech Victims in Abusive Language Detection
• Dataset of Fake News Detection and Fact Verification: A Survey
• Challenges in Automated Debiasing for Toxic Language Detection
• Annotating for Hate Speech: The MaNeCo Corpus and Some Input from Critical Discourse Analysis
• Cross-lingual Hate Speech Detection using Transformer Models
• Mitigation of Diachronic Bias in Fake News Detection Dataset
• Modeling Users and Online Communities for Abuse Detection: A Position on Ethics and Explainability