NLP datasets annotated with human judgments are rife with disagreements between the judges. This is especially true for tasks depending on subjective judgments such as sentiment analysis or offensive language detection. Particularly in these latter cases, the NLP community has come to realize that the common approach of reconciling’ these different subjective interpretations risks misrepresenting the evidence. Many NLP researchers have therefore concluded that rather than eliminating disagreements from annotated corpora, we should preserve themindeed, some argue that corpora should aim to preserve all interpretations produced by annotators. But this approach to corpus creation for NLP has not yet been widely accepted. The objective of the Le-Wi-Di series of shared tasks is to promote this approach to developing NLP models by providing a unified framework for training and evaluating with such datasets. We report on the second such shared task, which differs from the first edition in three crucial respects: (i) it focuses entirely on NLP, instead of both NLP and computer vision tasks in its first edition; (ii) it focuses on subjective tasks, instead of covering different types of disagreements as training with aggregated labels for subjective NLP tasks is in effect a misrepresentation of the data; and (iii) for the evaluation, we concentrated on soft approaches to evaluation. This second edition of Le-Wi-Di attracted a wide array of partici- pants resulting in 13 shared task submission papers.

The use of misogynistic and sexist language has increased in recent years in social media, and is increasing in the Arabic world in reaction to reforms attempting to remove restrictions on women lives. However, there are few benchmarks for Arabic misogyny and sexism detection, and in those the annotations are in aggregated form even though misogyny and sexism judgments are found to be highly subjective. In this paper we introduce an Arabic misogyny and sexism dataset (ArMIS) characterized by providing annotations from annotators with different degree of religious beliefs, and provide evidence that such differences do result in disagreements. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first dataset to study in detail the effect of beliefs on misogyny and sexism annotation. We also discuss proof-of-concept experiments showing that a dataset in which disagreements have not been reconciled can be used to train state-of-the-art models for misogyny and sexism detection; and consider different ways in which such models could be evaluated.