Collaborative filtering systems have been developed to manage information overload and improve discourse in online communities. In such systems, users rank content provided by other users on the validity or usefulness within their particular context. The goal is that "good" content will rise to prominence and "bad" content will fade into obscurity. These filtering mechanisms are not well-understood and have known weaknesses. For example, they depend on the presence of a large crowd to rate content, but such a crowd may not be present. Additionally, the community's decisions determine which voices will reach a large audience and which will be silenced, but it is not known if these decisions represent "the wisdom of crowds" or a "censoring mob." Our approach uses statistical machine learning to predict community ratings. By extracting features that replicate the community's verdict, we can better understand collaborative filtering, improve the way the community uses the ratings of their members, and design agents that augment community decision-making. Slashdot is an example of such a community where peers will rate each others' comments based on their relevance to the post. This work extracts a wide variety of features from the Slashdot metadata and posts' linguistic contents to identify features that can predict the community rating. We find that author reputation, use of pronouns, and author sentiment are salient. We achieve 76% accuracy predicting community ratings as good, neutral, or bad.

The use of statistical AI techniques in authorship recognition (or stylometry) has contributed to literary and historical breakthroughs. These successes have led to the use of these techniques in criminal investigations and prosecutions.  However, few have studied adversarial attacks and their devastating effect on the robustness of existing classification methods. This paper presents a framework for adversarial attacks including obfuscation attacks, where a subject attempts to hide their identity imitation attacks, where a subject attempts to frame another subject by imitating their writing style.  The major contribution of this research is that it demonstrates that both attacks work very well.  The obfuscation attack reduces the effectiveness of the techniques to the level of random guessing and the imitation attack succeeds with 68-91% probability depending on the stylometric technique used.  These results are made more significant by the fact that the experimental subjects were unfamiliar with stylometric techniques, without specialized knowledge in linguistics, and spent little time on the attacks. This paper also provides another significant contribution to the field in using human subjects to empirically validate the claim of high accuracy for current techniques (without attacks) by reproducing results for three representative stylometric methods.