Dilrukshi Gamage

Dilrukshi Gamage, Dilki Sewwandi, Min Zhang et al.

In this research, we explored the efficacy of various warning label designs for AI-generated content on social media platforms e.g., deepfakes. We devised and assessed ten distinct label design samples that varied across the dimensions of sentiment, color/iconography, positioning, and level of detail. Our experimental study involved 911 participants randomly assigned to these ten label designs and a control group evaluating social media content. We explored their perceptions relating to 1. Belief in the content being AI-generated, 2. Trust in the labels and 3. Social Media engagement perceptions of the content. The results demonstrate that the presence of labels had a significant effect on the users belief that the content is AI generated, deepfake, or edited by AI. However their trust in the label significantly varied based on the label design. Notably, having labels did not significantly change their engagement behaviors, such as like, comment, and sharing. However, there were significant differences in engagement based on content type: political and entertainment. This investigation contributes to the field of human computer interaction by defining a design space for label implementation and providing empirical support for the strategic use of labels to mitigate the risks associated with synthetically generated media.

Dilrukshi Gamage, Mark E Whiting

MOOC participants often feel isolated and disconnected from their peers. Navigating meaningful peer interactions, generating a sense of belonging, and achieving social presence are all major challenges for MOOC platforms. MOOC users often rely on external social platforms for such connection and peer interaction, however, off-platform networking often distracts participants from their learning. With the intention of resolving this issue, we introduce PeerCollab, a web-based platform that provides affordances to create communities and supports meaningful peer interactions, building close-knit groups of learners. We present an initial evaluation through a field study (n=56) over 6 weeks and a controlled experiment (n=22). The result indicates insights on how learners build a sense of belonging and develop peer interactions leading to close-knit learning circles. We find that PeerCollab can provide more meaningful interactions and create a community to bring a culture of social learning to decentralized, and isolated MOOC learners.

Snehalkumar, S. Gaikwad, Durim Morina et al.

Paid crowdsourcing platforms suffer from low-quality work and unfair rejections, but paradoxically, most workers and requesters have high reputation scores. These inflated scores, which make high-quality work and workers difficult to find, stem from social pressure to avoid giving negative feedback. We introduce Boomerang, a reputation system for crowdsourcing that elicits more accurate feedback by rebounding the consequences of feedback directly back onto the person who gave it. With Boomerang, requesters find that their highly-rated workers gain earliest access to their future tasks, and workers find tasks from their highly-rated requesters at the top of their task feed. Field experiments verify that Boomerang causes both workers and requesters to provide feedback that is more closely aligned with their private opinions. Inspired by a game-theoretic notion of incentive-compatibility, Boomerang opens opportunities for interaction design to incentivize honest reporting over strategic dishonesty.

Snehalkumar "Neil" S. Gaikwad, Nalin Chhibber, Vibhor Sehgal et al.

Low-quality results have been a long-standing problem on microtask crowdsourcing platforms, driving away requesters and justifying low wages for workers. To date, workers have been blamed for low-quality results: they are said to make as little effort as possible, do not pay attention to detail, and lack expertise. In this paper, we hypothesize that requesters may also be responsible for low-quality work: they launch unclear task designs that confuse even earnest workers, under-specify edge cases, and neglect to include examples. We introduce prototype tasks, a crowdsourcing strategy requiring all new task designs to launch a small number of sample tasks. Workers attempt these tasks and leave feedback, enabling the re- quester to iterate on the design before publishing it. We report a field experiment in which tasks that underwent prototype task iteration produced higher-quality work results than the original task designs. With this research, we suggest that a simple and rapid iteration cycle can improve crowd work, and we provide empirical evidence that requester "quality" directly impacts result quality.

Dilrukshi Gamage, Mark Whiting, Thejan Rajapakshe et al.

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) use peer assessment to grade open ended questions at scale, allowing students to provide feedback. Relative to teacher based grading, peer assessment on MOOCs traditionally delivers lower quality feedback and fewer learner interactions. We present the identified peer review (IPR) framework, which provides non-blind peer assessment and incentives driving high quality feedback. We show that, compared to traditional peer assessment methods, IPR leads to significantly longer and more useful feedback as well as more discussion between peers.

Mark E. Whiting, Dilrukshi Gamage, Snehalkumar S. Gaikwad et al.

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.