Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2022-03-30 11:45:05 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: F0B80D0845DB79B23EEB8D1F4E1585687A27BFDE5880714CBED219FFF2BD7A17
Participant Details

Original Note:

the journal itself published 3 rebuttals/debunkings. it's academic malpractice to cite it. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0321-8

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1508907743943573505
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - F0B80D0845DB79B23EEB8D1F4E1585687A27BFDE5880714CBED219FFF2BD7A17
  • createdAtMillis - 1648640705032
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - NOT_HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 1
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1508907743943573505F0B80D0845DB79B23EEB8D1F4E1585687A27BFDE5880714CBED219FFF2BD7A17