-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 243
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
- Loading branch information
Showing
1 changed file
with
10 additions
and
0 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ | ||
--- | ||
title: "Making Algorithms Public: Reimagining Auditing From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern" | ||
category: articles | ||
permalink: /articles/2024-01-01 | ||
excerpt: "Stakeholders concerned with bias, discrimination, and fairness in algorithmic systems are increasingly turning to audits, which typically apply generalizable methods and formal standards to investigate opaque systems. We discuss four attempts to audit algorithmic systems with varying levels of success—depending on the scope of both the system to be audited and the audit’s success criteria. Such scoping is contestable, negotiable, and political, linked to dominant institutions and movements to change them. Algorithmic auditing is typically envisioned as settling “matters-of-fact” about how opaque algorithmic systems behave: definitive declarations that (de)certify a system. However, there is little consensus about the decisions to be automated or about the institutions automating them. We reposition algorithmic auditing as an ongoing and ever-changing practice around “matters-of-concern.” This involves building infrastructures for the public to engage in open-ended democratic understanding, contestation, and problem solving—not just about algorithms in themselves, but the institutions and power structures deploying them. Auditors must recognize their privilege in scoping to “relevant” institutional standards and concerns, especially when stakeholders seek to reform or reimagine them." | ||
venue: "International Journal of Communication" | ||
date: 2024-01-01 | ||
--- | ||
|
||
[Download the PDF here](https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/download/20811/4455) |