  In this paper, we examine the work of data annotation. Specifically, we focus
on the role of counting or quantification in organising annotation work. Based
on an ethnographic study of data annotation in two outsourcing centres in
India, we observe that counting practices and its associated logics are an
integral part of day-to-day annotation activities. In particular, we call
attention to the presumption of total countability observed in annotation - the
notion that everything, from tasks, datasets and deliverables, to workers, work
time, quality and performance, can be managed by applying the logics of
counting. To examine this, we draw on sociological and socio-technical
scholarship on quantification and develop the lens of a 'regime of counting'
that makes explicit the specific counts, practices, actors and structures that
underpin the pervasive counting in annotation. We find that within the AI
supply chain and data work, counting regimes aid the assertion of authority by
the AI clients (also called requesters) over annotation processes, constituting
them as reductive, standardised, and homogenous. We illustrate how this has
implications for i) how annotation work and workers get valued, ii) the role
human discretion plays in annotation, and iii) broader efforts to introduce
accountable and more just practices in AI. Through these implications, we
illustrate the limits of operating within the logic of total countability.
Instead, we argue for a view of counting as partial - located in distinct
geographies, shaped by specific interests and accountable in only limited ways.
This, we propose, sets the stage for a fundamentally different orientation to
counting and what counts in data annotation.
