Incorporating Worker Perspectives into MTurk Annotation Practices for NLP
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Current practices regarding data collection for natural language processing on Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) often rely on a combination of studies on data quality and heuristics shared among NLP researchers. However, without considering the perspectives of MTurk workers, these approaches are susceptible to issues regarding workers' rights and poor response quality. We conducted a critical literature review and a survey of MTurk workers aimed at addressing open questions regarding best practices for fair payment, worker privacy, data quality, and considering worker incentives. We found that worker preferences are often at odds with received wisdom among NLP researchers. Surveyed workers preferred reliable, reasonable payments over uncertain, very high payments; reported frequently lying on demographic questions; and expressed frustration at having work rejected with no explanation. We also found that workers view some quality control methods, such as requiring minimum response times or Master's qualifications, as biased and largely ineffective. Based on the survey results, we provide recommendations on how future NLP studies may better account for MTurk workers' experiences in order to respect workers' rights and improve data quality.
Key facts. Cited by 17 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Nov 2023.
Builds on
8 of 33 references.
References · 8
- 2023ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Taskscited by 849
- 2019Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Languagecited by 377
- 2019Measurement and Fairnesscited by 299
- 2023Artificial Artificial Artificial Intelligence: Crowd Workers Widely Use Large Language Models for Text Production Taskscited by 102
- 2021The Perils of Using Mechanical Turk to Evaluate Open-Ended Text Generationcited by 96
- 2021Beyond Fair Pay: Ethical Implications of NLP Crowdsourcingcited by 52
- 2017A Data-Driven Analysis of Workers' Earnings on Amazon Mechanical Turkcited by 38
- 2021Quantifying and Avoiding Unfair Qualification Labour in Crowdsourcingcited by 11
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 10; 2025: 6; 2026: 1.
17 papers.
Sort:
By area:
- 2024Quantifying the Persona Effect in LLM Simulationscited by 164
- 2024The Perspectivist Paradigm Shift: Assumptions and Challenges of Capturing Human Labelscited by 37
- 2024Better Synthetic Data by Retrieving and Transforming Existing Datasetscited by 36
- 2024LLM Self-Correction with DeCRIM: Decompose, Critique, and Refine for Enhanced Following of Instructions with Multiple Constraintscited by 34
- 2024Mapping Social Choice Theory to RLHFcited by 26
- 2024Advancing Social Intelligence in AI Agents: Technical Challenges and Open Questionscited by 21
- 2024Efficacy of Language Model Self-Play in Non-Zero-Sum Gamescited by 14
- 2024Re-examining Sexism and Misogyny Classification with Annotator Attitudescited by 7
- 2025LLMs as Span Annotators: A Comparative Study of LLMs and Humanscited by 7
- 2024ARTICLE: Annotator Reliability Through In-Context Learningcited by 6
- 2025The Impact of Annotator Personas on LLM Behavior Across the Perspectivism Spectrumcited by 3
- 2024Ethics Whitepaper: Whitepaper on Ethical Research into Large Language Modelscited by 1
5 more
- 2025Aligning NLP Models with Target Population Perspectives using PAIR: Population-Aligned Instance Replicationcited by 1
- 2025The Majority Vote Paradigm Shift: When Popular Meets Optimalcited by 0
- 2025Balancing Quality and Variation: Spam Filtering Distorts Data Label Distributionscited by 0
- 2025Hypernetworks for Perspectivist Adaptationcited by 0
- 2026Rater State Bias in RLHF Preference Data: An Audit Frameworkcited by 0
- 2026Rater State Bias in RLHF Preference Data: An Audit Framework14 Apr 2026
- 2025Hypernetworks for Perspectivist Adaptation15 Oct 2025
- 2025Balancing Quality and Variation: Spam Filtering Distorts Data Label Distributions10 Sep 2025
- 2025The Impact of Annotator Personas on LLM Behavior Across the Perspectivism Spectrum23 Aug 2025
- 2025LLMs as Span Annotators: A Comparative Study of LLMs and Humans11 Apr 2025
- 2025The Majority Vote Paradigm Shift: When Popular Meets Optimal18 Feb 2025
- 2025Aligning NLP Models with Target Population Perspectives using PAIR: Population-Aligned Instance Replication12 Jan 2025
- 2024Ethics Whitepaper: Whitepaper on Ethical Research into Large Language Models17 Oct 2024
- 2024LLM Self-Correction with DeCRIM: Decompose, Critique, and Refine for Enhanced Following of Instructions with Multiple Constraints9 Oct 2024
- 2024Re-examining Sexism and Misogyny Classification with Annotator Attitudes4 Oct 2024
- 2024ARTICLE: Annotator Reliability Through In-Context Learning18 Sep 2024
- 2024Efficacy of Language Model Self-Play in Non-Zero-Sum Games27 Jun 2024
5 more
- 2024The Perspectivist Paradigm Shift: Assumptions and Challenges of Capturing Human Labels9 May 2024
- 2024Better Synthetic Data by Retrieving and Transforming Existing Datasets22 Apr 2024
- 2024Mapping Social Choice Theory to RLHF19 Apr 2024
- 2024Advancing Social Intelligence in AI Agents: Technical Challenges and Open Questions17 Apr 2024
- 2024Quantifying the Persona Effect in LLM Simulations16 Feb 2024
- 2024Mapping Social Choice Theory to RLHFcited by 26
- 2026Rater State Bias in RLHF Preference Data: An Audit Frameworkcited by 0
- 2026Rater State Bias in RLHF Preference Data: An Audit Framework14 Apr 2026
- 2024Mapping Social Choice Theory to RLHF19 Apr 2024
- 2024Quantifying the Persona Effect in LLM Simulationscited by 164
- 2024The Perspectivist Paradigm Shift: Assumptions and Challenges of Capturing Human Labelscited by 37
- 2024Advancing Social Intelligence in AI Agents: Technical Challenges and Open Questionscited by 21
- 2024Re-examining Sexism and Misogyny Classification with Annotator Attitudescited by 7
- 2025LLMs as Span Annotators: A Comparative Study of LLMs and Humanscited by 7
- 2024ARTICLE: Annotator Reliability Through In-Context Learningcited by 6
- 2025The Impact of Annotator Personas on LLM Behavior Across the Perspectivism Spectrumcited by 3
- 2024Ethics Whitepaper: Whitepaper on Ethical Research into Large Language Modelscited by 1
- 2025Aligning NLP Models with Target Population Perspectives using PAIR: Population-Aligned Instance Replicationcited by 1
- 2025The Majority Vote Paradigm Shift: When Popular Meets Optimalcited by 0
- 2025Balancing Quality and Variation: Spam Filtering Distorts Data Label Distributionscited by 0
- 2025Hypernetworks for Perspectivist Adaptationcited by 0
- 2025Hypernetworks for Perspectivist Adaptation15 Oct 2025
- 2025Balancing Quality and Variation: Spam Filtering Distorts Data Label Distributions10 Sep 2025
- 2025The Impact of Annotator Personas on LLM Behavior Across the Perspectivism Spectrum23 Aug 2025
- 2025LLMs as Span Annotators: A Comparative Study of LLMs and Humans11 Apr 2025
- 2025The Majority Vote Paradigm Shift: When Popular Meets Optimal18 Feb 2025
- 2025Aligning NLP Models with Target Population Perspectives using PAIR: Population-Aligned Instance Replication12 Jan 2025
- 2024Ethics Whitepaper: Whitepaper on Ethical Research into Large Language Models17 Oct 2024
- 2024Re-examining Sexism and Misogyny Classification with Annotator Attitudes4 Oct 2024
- 2024ARTICLE: Annotator Reliability Through In-Context Learning18 Sep 2024
- 2024The Perspectivist Paradigm Shift: Assumptions and Challenges of Capturing Human Labels9 May 2024
- 2024Advancing Social Intelligence in AI Agents: Technical Challenges and Open Questions17 Apr 2024
- 2024Quantifying the Persona Effect in LLM Simulations16 Feb 2024