  When arranging for third-party data annotation, it can be hard to compare how
well the competing providers apply best practices to create high-quality
datasets. This leads to a "race to the bottom," where competition based solely
on price makes it hard for vendors to charge for high-quality annotation. We
propose a voluntary rubric which can be used (a) as a scorecard to compare
vendors' offerings, (b) to communicate our expectations of the vendors more
clearly and consistently than today, (c) to justify the expense of choosing
someone other than the lowest bidder, and (d) to encourage annotation providers
to improve their practices.
