WSDM 2016在线实验伦理研讨会

Fernando Diaz, Solon Barocas
{"title":"WSDM 2016在线实验伦理研讨会","authors":"Fernando Diaz, Solon Barocas","doi":"10.1145/2835776.2855117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Online experimentation is now a core and near-constant part of the operation of a production online service, such as a web search engine or social media service. These are large-scale experiments that involve research subjects often numbering in the hundreds of thousands and wide-ranging, computer-automated variations in experimental treatment. In some cases, the results of online experiments may be of use internally to optimize system performance (for example, a test may be conducted to help make web page layout decisions). In other cases, the results may be of academic interest (for example, an experiment may be conducted to test a hypothesis about human behavior). Because of their rapid deployment and broad impact, online experimentation systems provide an extremely valuable tool for scientists and engineers. Despite this statistical power, in some situations, an online experiment can raise difficult ethical questions. One only needs to revisit the conversations resulting from the Facebook emotional contagion experiment to understand that some experiments may, at the very least, warrant careful review before being conducted. Since this episode, scholarship published mainly in the qualitative research and information law communities indicates that this may not be an isolated incident. Ethical and legal problems probably arise in other online experiments, published or not. As experimentation platforms and users become easily accessible, scientists and practitioners may increasingly put the well-being and trust of end users at risk. In light of these concerns, organizations often review online experiments before they are actually conducted. In production settings, the review process might vary with respect to formality or standards across companies and even groups within companies. When intended or used for academic publication, experiments or data may have undergone inconsistent review processes, some implementing academic-style institutional review boards and others none at all. Although there is a suggestion that service providers are concerned about the wellbeing of end users, the community does not","PeriodicalId":20567,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"WSDM 2016 Workshop on the Ethics of Online Experimentation\",\"authors\":\"Fernando Diaz, Solon Barocas\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2835776.2855117\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Online experimentation is now a core and near-constant part of the operation of a production online service, such as a web search engine or social media service. These are large-scale experiments that involve research subjects often numbering in the hundreds of thousands and wide-ranging, computer-automated variations in experimental treatment. In some cases, the results of online experiments may be of use internally to optimize system performance (for example, a test may be conducted to help make web page layout decisions). In other cases, the results may be of academic interest (for example, an experiment may be conducted to test a hypothesis about human behavior). Because of their rapid deployment and broad impact, online experimentation systems provide an extremely valuable tool for scientists and engineers. Despite this statistical power, in some situations, an online experiment can raise difficult ethical questions. One only needs to revisit the conversations resulting from the Facebook emotional contagion experiment to understand that some experiments may, at the very least, warrant careful review before being conducted. Since this episode, scholarship published mainly in the qualitative research and information law communities indicates that this may not be an isolated incident. Ethical and legal problems probably arise in other online experiments, published or not. As experimentation platforms and users become easily accessible, scientists and practitioners may increasingly put the well-being and trust of end users at risk. In light of these concerns, organizations often review online experiments before they are actually conducted. In production settings, the review process might vary with respect to formality or standards across companies and even groups within companies. When intended or used for academic publication, experiments or data may have undergone inconsistent review processes, some implementing academic-style institutional review boards and others none at all. Although there is a suggestion that service providers are concerned about the wellbeing of end users, the community does not\",\"PeriodicalId\":20567,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-02-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2835776.2855117\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2835776.2855117","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在线实验现在是在线生产服务(如网络搜索引擎或社交媒体服务)运营的核心和几乎不变的部分。这些是大规模的实验,涉及的研究对象通常有数十万人,实验处理的范围广泛,由计算机自动完成。在某些情况下,在线实验的结果可能会在内部用于优化系统性能(例如,可以进行测试以帮助制定网页布局决策)。在其他情况下,结果可能具有学术意义(例如,可以进行实验来测试关于人类行为的假设)。由于其快速部署和广泛的影响,在线实验系统为科学家和工程师提供了极有价值的工具。尽管有这种统计上的力量,但在某些情况下,在线实验可能会引发棘手的伦理问题。我们只需要回顾一下Facebook情绪传染实验中产生的对话,就会明白,至少在进行某些实验之前,有必要仔细审查。自这一事件以来,主要在定性研究和信息法社区发表的学术研究表明,这可能不是一个孤立的事件。伦理和法律问题可能会出现在其他在线实验中,无论是否发表。随着实验平台和用户变得容易接近,科学家和从业者可能越来越多地将最终用户的福祉和信任置于危险之中。考虑到这些问题,组织经常在实际进行在线实验之前对其进行审查。在生产环境中,审查过程可能会因公司之间甚至公司内部的小组的形式或标准而有所不同。当打算或用于学术出版时,实验或数据可能经历了不一致的审查过程,有些实施了学术性的机构审查委员会,而另一些则根本没有。虽然有人认为服务提供者关心最终用户的福祉,但社区并不关心
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
WSDM 2016 Workshop on the Ethics of Online Experimentation
Online experimentation is now a core and near-constant part of the operation of a production online service, such as a web search engine or social media service. These are large-scale experiments that involve research subjects often numbering in the hundreds of thousands and wide-ranging, computer-automated variations in experimental treatment. In some cases, the results of online experiments may be of use internally to optimize system performance (for example, a test may be conducted to help make web page layout decisions). In other cases, the results may be of academic interest (for example, an experiment may be conducted to test a hypothesis about human behavior). Because of their rapid deployment and broad impact, online experimentation systems provide an extremely valuable tool for scientists and engineers. Despite this statistical power, in some situations, an online experiment can raise difficult ethical questions. One only needs to revisit the conversations resulting from the Facebook emotional contagion experiment to understand that some experiments may, at the very least, warrant careful review before being conducted. Since this episode, scholarship published mainly in the qualitative research and information law communities indicates that this may not be an isolated incident. Ethical and legal problems probably arise in other online experiments, published or not. As experimentation platforms and users become easily accessible, scientists and practitioners may increasingly put the well-being and trust of end users at risk. In light of these concerns, organizations often review online experiments before they are actually conducted. In production settings, the review process might vary with respect to formality or standards across companies and even groups within companies. When intended or used for academic publication, experiments or data may have undergone inconsistent review processes, some implementing academic-style institutional review boards and others none at all. Although there is a suggestion that service providers are concerned about the wellbeing of end users, the community does not
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信