We removed it 
Please post new questions as a GitHub issue (e.g. at least 50, we would also need translations for many languages).
We will also remove “Validate”, after 261 questions in the queue have been processed.
Reason: Unfortunately not everybody reads the guidelines as you do. Also some do misuse the facility.
In the last incidents we had to clean-up:
- Some hate-speech triggering questions (and answers+transcriptions)
- PII triggering questions (Q: “What is your name” - validated - answered by 14 people - also transcribed - and nobody reported them as PII)
Very nice slideshow btw
You can also always have a peek to the CHANGELOG.md, we try to keep it up-to-date…
Hi, thanks for the answer! Is it temporary solution until you implement the scheme where users will be needed to read guidelines more deep in the beginning as you described here or you changed and accepted this behavior permanently?
Do you mean if we suggest questions through Github, we need to translate our questions to some additional language that you can check them? If so, which languages are allowed for translation?
Unfortunately, the guidelines are not enough clear too, so even if I read them, I don’t always really understand what you as project expect from me.
For instance, AFAIK, the main goal of CV project is collecting of audio transcriptions for ASR tasks. And recognition of offensive lexicon is a so important part of ASR! It can be used in game voice chats for banning users, who use it, for automatic detecting and replacing this lexicon etc. And because I thought collecting this words is one of the important parts of ASR, I asked if all offensive, hate-speech and aggresive words are strictly forbidden or they just shouldn’t be addressed to anyone really in a serious manner. So I tried to write questions, that can collect words of this kind without real addressing to anyone in format similar to “Read this prompt and only after that answer to it. Say 4-5 random swear words you know”. In this case it is clear, that it is not used to injure someone and pronounced for collecting goals only. But I still didn’t get the final decision about that from the project perspective. I only got the answer it is totally subjective what is offensive and what is not. What should it mean? If I think that the word “idiot” is offensive, should I report any audio that includes it even if it is just “I was a fucking idiot when I was teenager!”? Of course it is subjective, but you as project should have your clear unified understanding and guidelines for it, that I as a contributor should take into account, which is not possible right now, because you don’t have them. Even just “Don’t write questions that need answers with insults related to gender, orientation, physical disabilities, stereotypes.” will be much more useful, if you don’t want to create a full list of forbidden words. Other option is creating of separate part of the dataset where it should be legalized and users should agree they are ready to work with this harmful content before contributing to it and all reported as harmful questions/answers should be redirected to this subpart. Or the third option: to completely forbid any offensive lexicon, which will be disadvantage, in my opinion, but at least it will be clear how to work with that.
Similar problem:
I many times asked to clarify in the guidelines what is personal data according to project’s understanding/jurisdiction, because I didn’t find any list, in which it is specified. Without them I need to use my basic world knowledge for recognizing it, which is imperfect.
So for me it is:
- user’s name (every part of it) or of anyone the user know
- email/other personal contact details
- address and location (starting from the city)
- name of university where the user learned, learn and similar
- id card and other document details
- credit card or any personal financial info
Perhaps it is not all I count as personal data but it is all I can remember by heart right now. Feel free to add/specify if I missed something.
I wasn’t sure if to count user’s country as personally identifiable information but decided it is not based on questions the CV gave as example of good questions, because many of them need to name country or even without naming it, it will be easy to identify it. For instance:
- Q: “What kinds of migration do you have in your country?”. If I starts to explain about aliyah, it is clear Israel. Or A:“Many of people leaved my country because of the war between Russia and Ukraine” it is clear one of them.
- Q: “Do schools in your country support multiple languages?” - A: “No, all education is in Russian only” = “I’m from Russia”
- Q: “Who is a famous historical figure or legend from your country?” A = “I’m from country [x]”
- Q: “What are the main reasons people in your community move to other places?” - A: “Internet outages by Roskomnadzor” = “I’m from Russia”
And many other similar questions/answers/situations. So I decided that until it is not more concrete than country it is OK. But I can’t be sure without full list what is PII and what is not. And I’m not alone. While writing and adding questions for Esperanto we had a strange situation, where I thought the proposed questions by the first user who opened the issue were generated by AI, because they were out of CV context at all. He wrote many questions of this kind:
- Who ate my pie?
- Where is your book?
- Can you give me a cup of water please?
- What is in the cup?
- Why are you crying?
- etc.
And I didn’t understand, how someone can answer openly to these questions, that clearly need some really specific context for them and wasn’t given, so I proposed some changes and suddenly realized their author didn’t generate them with AI. He also didn’t understand why I want to change these questions, while I wasn’t able to understand which logic can be used for adding and supporting them. But after some long discussion we have understood what happened…
He thought, that PII is any real fact/data about user, so if someone tells about favorite book or ideal party for them, it is PII already and should be declined. Because of that he was sure, that he need to write questions for some imaginary situations/scenarios, where recorders should create context for them and answer according to to these imagined contexts. This is what he guessed should happen according to my understanding:
[Prompt]
Who ate my pie?[User creates context]
Mom cooked a pie for the whole family, but someone ate it alone.[User’s answer for this imagined situation, that just was created from the perspective of participant of this situation]
That’s not me, mom! I was in my room the whole day.
And it wasn’t easy for me to find this logic, because it is something so non standard and difficult for me that I even wasn’t able to think about that. But it happened. And it happened because it is not clear, how personal data is defined in CV project and everyone understand it in a different way. Perhaps someone thought that names are not personal info as well.
Of course I don’t believe everyone who recorded their names really read and understood the guidelines, but I’m pretty much sure, that unclear guidelines are the part of this problem and is the huge part of it.
It is Discourse feature, not mine
Nice write-up and valid points. As I explained in our previous posts, we will be handling many of them. In any case some would need input from Legal Department etc of course… And we also talked about re-designing the “documentation” and making sure people read what is important (WIP).
Your list on PII covers most of it, but you cannot have a full list, people should get the idea and think a bit how people can answer them - going out of their own box. Many people might also not be aware of the PII problem itself. Currently everyone is equal - although some are more equal (knowledgable - WIP)…
The GitHub solution (which is currently permanent) can solve it, because multiple people from the project will check them. Any major language is OK there (so is Russian), but we cannot know all of them, thus we might need to ask for translations to one of the UN languages for example.
Country is OK. Sometimes even the city (e.g. a metropolitan area), actually there are many questions like “Which part of your city do you like most?”. The problem arises if multiple features combine. E.g. a person speaking Turkish, English, and German, living in İstanbul and dealing with voice AI would most possibly point to a single person (who also has cats). 4-5 questions can collect those features (e.g. a perfectly valid question - “Which foreign languages do you know?”).
So it needs some knowledge - but the rest is mostly common sense.
Sometimes one cannot be aware… I lived that in our project with Circassian languages about two years before, where we created those questions on Google Sheets, like an async workshop. One person asked:
“Can you describe how can I get to your house?”
where she was thinking an answer like “turn left from second street, it is the third apartment on the left”… She never thought somebody can give exact street/apartment names which would pinpoint a person’s location (more than PII).
One must re-re-re-read the question from views of others, and thus other “more educated” people must review them (currently this can only be people from the project).
The interesting thing in the last example was: Nobody reported it, but answered, transcribed, and maybe validated…