Concerns have reached the mainstream about how social media are affecting political outcomes. One trajectory for this is the exposure of politicians to online abuse. In this paper we use 1.4 million tweets from the months before the 2015 and 2017 UK general elections to explore the abuse directed at politicians. This collection allows us to look at abuse broken down by both party and gender and aimed at specific Members of Parliament. It also allows us to investigate the characteristics of those who send abuse and their topics of interest. Results show that in both absolute and proportional terms, abuse increased substantially in 2017 compared with 2015. Abusive replies are somewhat less directed at women and those not in the currently governing party. Those who send the abuse may be issue-focused, or they may repeatedly target an individual. In the latter category, accounts are more likely to be throwaway. Those sending abuse have a wide range of topical triggers, including borders and terrorism.
Work exists regarding accurately identifying abusive messages automatically @cite_0 @cite_9 @cite_14 @cite_20 @cite_1 . The work of has been described as the state of the art, with precision recall of 0.63 being reported as equivalent to human performance. report a human interannotator agreement of only 0.69 in annotating racial slurs, and report a human agreement of 0.8 with a Krippendorf's alpha of 0.25 on UK data, demonstrating that the limiting factor is the complexity of the task definition. Burnap and Williams particularly focus on hate speech with regards to protected characteristics such as race, disability and sexual orientation. Waseem and Hovy also focus on hate speech, and share a gold standard UK Tweet corpus. seek to identify the problem accounts rather than the problem material. Schmidt and Wiegand provide a review of prior work and methods.
@cite_14 @cite_9 @cite_1 @cite_0 @cite_20
2160685721 2340954483 2949089361 1871142974 2044173330
We present an approach to detecting hate speech in online text, where hate speech is defined as abusive speech targeting specific group characteristics, such as ethnic origin, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. While hate speech against any group may exhibit some common characteristics, we have observed that hatred against each different group is typically characterized by the use of a small set of high frequency stereotypical words; however, such words may be used in either a positive or a negative sense, making our task similar to that of words sense disambiguation. In this paper we describe our definition of hate speech, the collection and annotation of our hate speech corpus, and a mechanism for detecting some commonly used methods of evading common "dirty word" filters. We describe pilot classification experiments in which we classify anti-semitic speech reaching an accuracy 94 , precision of 68 and recall at 60 , for an F1 measure of. 6375. Scholars are increasingly citing electronic “web references” which are not preserved in libraries or full text archives. WebCite is a new standard for citing web references. To “webcite” a document involves archiving the cited Web page through www.webcitation.org and citing the WebCite permalink instead of (or in addition to) the unstable live Web page. This journal has amended its “instructions for authors” accordingly, asking authors to archive cited Web pages before submitting a manuscript. Almost 200 other journals are already using the system. We discuss the rationale for WebCite, its technology, and how scholars, editors, and publishers can benefit from the service. Citing scholars initiate an archiving process of all cited Web references, ideally before they submit a manuscript. Authors of online documents and websites which are expected to be cited by others can ensure that their work is permanently available by creating an archived copy using WebCite and providing the citation information including the WebCite link on their Web document(s). Editors should ask their authors to cache all cited Web addresses (Uniform Resource Locators, or URLs) “prospectively” before submitting their manuscripts to their journal. Editors and publishers should also instruct their copyeditors to cache cited Web material if the author has not done so already. Finally, WebCite can process publisher submitted “citing articles” (submitted for example as eXtensible Markup Language [XML] documents) to automatically archive all cited Web pages shortly before or on publication. Finally, WebCite can act as a focussed crawler, caching retrospectively references of already published articles. Copyright issues are addressed by honouring respective Internet standards (robot exclusion files, no-cache and no-archive tags). Long-term preservation is ensured by agreements with libraries and digital preservation organizations. The resulting WebCite Index may also have applications for research assessment exercises, being able to measure the impact of Web services and published Web documents through access and Web citation metrics. @PARASPLIT [J Med Internet Res 2005;7(5):e60] A citing sentence is one that appears in a scientific article and cites previous work. Citing sentences have been studied and used in many applications. For example, they have been used in scientific paper summarization, automatic survey generation, paraphrase identification, and citation function classification. Citing sentences that cite multiple papers are common in scientific writing. This observation should be taken into consideration when using citing sentences in applications. For instance, when a citing sentence is used in a summary of a scientific paper, only the fragments of the sentence that are relevant to the summarized paper should be included in the summary. In this paper, we present and compare three different approaches for identifying the fragments of a citing sentence that are related to a given target reference. Our methods are: word classification, sequence labeling, and segment classification. Our experiments show that segment classification achieves the best results. Hate speech in the form of racist and sexist remarks are a common occurrence on social media. For that reason, many social media services address the problem of identifying hate speech, but the definition of hate speech varies markedly and is largely a manual effort (BBC, 2015; Lomas, 2015). We provide a list of criteria founded in critical race theory, and use them to annotate a publicly available corpus of more than 16k tweets. We analyze the impact of various extra-linguistic features in conjunction with character n-grams for hatespeech detection. We also present a dictionary based the most indicative words in our data.