Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2023-12-08 14:57:11 UTC - NOT_MISLEADING

NNN. This is an issue still under debate, and the proposed note links to old articles from 2020. For example, a more recent article suggesting otherwise: https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a CNs should correct information that has been proven to be incorrect, not answer speculation with more speculation.

Written by DA38EF6D734C7A82F27D00AA54A88CC39756C94B6F9FBBC6FC5C1B41DAF0B172
Participant Details

Original Tweet

Tweet embedding is no longer reliably available, due to the platform's instability (in terms of both technology and policy). If the Tweet still exists, you can view it here: https://twitter.com/foo_bar/status/1733085620908548336

Please note, though, that you may need to have your own Twitter account to access that page. I am currently exploring options for archiving Tweet data in a post-API context.

All Information

  • ID - 1733138659472261135
  • noteId - 1733138659472261135
  • participantId -
  • noteAuthorParticipantId - DA38EF6D734C7A82F27D00AA54A88CC39756C94B6F9FBBC6FC5C1B41DAF0B172 Participant Details
  • createdAtMillis - 1702047431231
  • tweetId - 1733085620908548336
  • classification - NOT_MISLEADING
  • believable -
  • harmful -
  • validationDifficulty -
  • misleadingOther - 0
  • misleadingFactualError - 0
  • misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
  • misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
  • misleadingMissingImportantContext - 0
  • misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 0
  • misleadingSatire - 0
  • notMisleadingOther - 0
  • notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 0
  • notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
  • notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
  • notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 1
  • trustworthySources - 1
  • summary
    • NNN. This is an issue still under debate, and the proposed note links to old articles from 2020. For example, a more recent article suggesting otherwise: https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a CNs should correct information that has been proven to be incorrect, not answer speculation with more speculation.

Note Status History

createdAt timestampMillisOfFirstNonNMRStatus firstNonNMRStatus timestampMillisOfCurrentStatus currentStatus timestampMillisOfLatestNonNMRStatus mostRecentNonNMRStatus participantId
2023-12-08 14:57:11 UTC
(1702047431231)
1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)
2023-12-09 03:24:29 UTC
(1702092269635)
NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS 1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)

Note Ratings

rated at rated by
2023-12-08 14:40:38 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-08 12:41:12 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-08 11:30:41 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-08 11:04:00 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-08 10:25:42 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-09 03:59:26 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-09 03:04:32 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-11 09:54:20 -0600 Rating Details