The Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University has four new publications online. https://cyber.harvard.edu/node/99716
“Understanding Harmful Speech Online: Research Note” is a summary of current research, with several pages of links at the end. One phrase that stood out: "Munger also recently conducted an experiment among groups of users on Twitter considered harassers on the platform and found that counter speech using automated bots can impact and reduce instances of racist speech if 'that subjects… were sanctioned by a high-follower white male'.”
Two papers are from the Global South. "Grassroots Perspectives on Hate Speech, Race, & Inequality in Brazil & Colombia" has an entire section on "counter-speech", or counter narratives, a term that seems to be gaining some currency. "Preliminary Findings on Online Hate Speech and the Law in India" talks about inciting sectarian violence with fake news.
Finally, for an understanding of the definitions of hate speech, forget the Wikipedia article, which embarrassingly uses the words "politically correct" and "Newspeak" in the introductory paragraphs, sourced to opinion pieces by two bloggers who did not even use the words. The paper “Defining Hate Speech” gives a thought-provoking overview of various approaches to identifying hate speech in a text. One such framework developed by Parekh noted “three essential features” of hate speech: (1) “it is directed against a specified or easily identifiable individual or, more commonly, a group of individuals based on an arbitrary or normatively irrelevant feature;” (2) the speech “stigmatizes the target group by implicitly or explicitly ascribing to it qualities widely regarded as undesirable;” and (3) “because of its negative qualities, the target group is viewed as an undesirable presence and a legitimate object of hostility.” Also this, food for thought about criteria for communication on Wikipedia's talk pages: "...Ward’s definition, noting that a speaker should be seen as employing hate speech if 'their attacks are so virulent that an observer would have great difficulty separating the message delivered from the attack against the victim'.”
Thanks for the updates. I'm pinging Patrick Earley, who is tracking this kind of research for WMF, in case he has yet to see this info.
Pine
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
The Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University has four new publications online. https://cyber.harvard.edu/node/99716
“Understanding Harmful Speech Online: Research Note” is a summary of current research, with several pages of links at the end. One phrase that stood out: "Munger also recently conducted an experiment among groups of users on Twitter considered harassers on the platform and found that counter speech using automated bots can impact and reduce instances of racist speech if 'that subjects… were sanctioned by a high-follower white male'.”
Two papers are from the Global South. "Grassroots Perspectives on Hate Speech, Race, & Inequality in Brazil & Colombia" has an entire section on "counter-speech", or counter narratives, a term that seems to be gaining some currency. "Preliminary Findings on Online Hate Speech and the Law in India" talks about inciting sectarian violence with fake news.
Finally, for an understanding of the definitions of hate speech, forget the Wikipedia article, which embarrassingly uses the words "politically correct" and "Newspeak" in the introductory paragraphs, sourced to opinion pieces by two bloggers who did not even use the words. The paper “Defining Hate Speech” gives a thought-provoking overview of various approaches to identifying hate speech in a text. One such framework developed by Parekh noted “three essential features” of hate speech: (1) “it is directed against a specified or easily identifiable individual or, more commonly, a group of individuals based on an arbitrary or normatively irrelevant feature;” (2) the speech “stigmatizes the target group by implicitly or explicitly ascribing to it qualities widely regarded as undesirable;” and (3) “because of its negative qualities, the target group is viewed as an undesirable presence and a legitimate object of hostility.” Also this, food for thought about criteria for communication on Wikipedia's talk pages: "...Ward’s definition, noting that a speaker should be seen as employing hate speech if 'their attacks are so virulent that an observer would have great difficulty separating the message delivered from the attack against the victim'.”
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
There is also a new-ish research institute, "Data & Society", that looks promising, " focused on the social and cultural issues arising from data-centric technological development".
"Online Harassment, Digital Abuse, and Cyberstalking in America" https://datasociety.net/output/online-harassment-digital-abuse-cyberstalking...
“New report shows that 4% of U.S. internet users have been a victim of 'revenge porn'” https://datasociety.net/blog/2016/12/13/nonconsensual-image-sharing/
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the updates. I'm pinging Patrick Earley, who is tracking this kind of research for WMF, in case he has yet to see this info.
Pine
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
The Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University
has
four new publications online. https://cyber.harvard.edu/node/99716
“Understanding Harmful Speech Online: Research Note” is a summary of
current
research, with several pages of links at the end. One phrase that stood out: "Munger also recently conducted an experiment among groups of users
on
Twitter considered harassers on the platform and found that counter
speech
using automated bots can impact and reduce instances of racist speech if 'that subjects… were sanctioned by a high-follower white male'.”
Two papers are from the Global South. "Grassroots Perspectives on Hate Speech, Race, & Inequality in Brazil & Colombia" has an entire section on "counter-speech", or counter narratives, a term that seems to be gaining some currency. "Preliminary Findings on Online Hate Speech and the Law
in
India" talks about inciting sectarian violence with fake news.
Finally, for an understanding of the definitions of hate speech, forget
the
Wikipedia article, which embarrassingly uses the words "politically
correct"
and "Newspeak" in the introductory paragraphs, sourced to opinion pieces
by
two bloggers who did not even use the words. The paper “Defining Hate Speech” gives a thought-provoking overview of various approaches to identifying hate speech in a text. One such framework developed by
Parekh
noted “three essential features” of hate speech: (1) “it is directed
against
a specified or easily identifiable individual or, more commonly, a group
of
individuals based on an arbitrary or normatively irrelevant feature;” (2) the speech “stigmatizes the target group by implicitly or explicitly ascribing to it qualities widely regarded as undesirable;” and (3)
“because
of its negative qualities, the target group is viewed as an undesirable presence and a legitimate object of hostility.” Also this, food for
thought
about criteria for communication on Wikipedia's talk pages: "...Ward’s definition, noting that a speaker should be seen as employing hate
speech if
'their attacks are so virulent that an observer would have great
difficulty
separating the message delivered from the attack against the victim'.”
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Finally, for an understanding of the definitions of hate speech, forget the Wikipedia article, which >embarrassingly uses the words "politically correct" and "Newspeak" in the introductory >paragraphs, sourced to opinion pieces by two bloggers who did not even use the words.
I just fixed that (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_speech&diff=prev&old...) One of the cited sources was, in fact, dead, and you are correct that the other one didn’t use either term.
Daniel Case
It's worth checking the Wayback Machine before concluding that a link is truly dead -- the PDF still lives here: https://web.archive.org/web/20020127181112/http://www.thesocialcontract.com/...
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:58 AM, dancase@frontiernet.net wrote:
Sent from Mail https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986 for Windows 10
*>*Finally, for an understanding of the definitions of hate speech, forget the Wikipedia article, which >embarrassingly uses the words "politically correct" and "Newspeak" in the introductory >paragraphs, sourced to opinion pieces by two bloggers who did not even use the words.
I just fixed that (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_speech& diff=prev&oldid=754831551) One of the cited sources was, in fact, dead, and you are correct that the other one didn’t use either term.
Daniel Case
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Well, my point was not so much about the link (and I didn't have any trouble with it) but about the reliability of the sources, both of which are basically anti-immigration screeds and only mention hate speech in passing, without giving any real information about it. The "Defining Hate Speech" paper does go into it in depth, both from a legal aspect, and from the aspect of social media, in a way that you can understand the issues, objections, and limitations. There are probably enough citations in there you could use it to rewrite the whole article, the way Kevin did with the revenge porn article.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
It's worth checking the Wayback Machine before concluding that a link is truly dead -- the PDF still lives here: https://web.archive.org/web/ 20020127181112/http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf/eleven-two/xi-2-91.pdf
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:58 AM, dancase@frontiernet.net wrote:
Sent from Mail https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986 for Windows 10
*>*Finally, for an understanding of the definitions of hate speech, forget the Wikipedia article, which >embarrassingly uses the words "politically correct" and "Newspeak" in the introductory >paragraphs, sourced to opinion pieces by two bloggers who did not even use the words.
I just fixed that (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/in dex.php?title=Hate_speech&diff=prev&oldid=754831551) One of the cited sources was, in fact, dead, and you are correct that the other one didn’t use either term.
Daniel Case
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap