  The process of gathering ground truth data through human annotation is a
major bottleneck in the use of information extraction methods for populating
the Semantic Web. Crowdsourcing-based approaches are gaining popularity in the
attempt to solve the issues related to volume of data and lack of annotators.
Typically these practices use inter-annotator agreement as a measure of
quality. However, in many domains, such as event detection, there is ambiguity
in the data, as well as a multitude of perspectives of the information
examples. We present an empirically derived methodology for efficiently
gathering of ground truth data in a diverse set of use cases covering a variety
of domains and annotation tasks. Central to our approach is the use of
CrowdTruth metrics that capture inter-annotator disagreement. We show that
measuring disagreement is essential for acquiring a high quality ground truth.
We achieve this by comparing the quality of the data aggregated with CrowdTruth
metrics with majority vote, over a set of diverse crowdsourcing tasks: Medical
Relation Extraction, Twitter Event Identification, News Event Extraction and
Sound Interpretation. We also show that an increased number of crowd workers
leads to growth and stabilization in the quality of annotations, going against
the usual practice of employing a small number of annotators.
