Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-06-28 10:39:19 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 621E46D684B75C44A0E50F825E7CA1C2D27F26B055C3C300EFD7C5872A8D6835
Participant Details

Original Note:

This is a case where the individual making the statement is an expert in the field and, just like an expert witness testifying in a court of law, their subject matter expertise makes their testimony admissible as fact. He is an expert. The necessary source is the tweet itself.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1673673074430935041
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 621E46D684B75C44A0E50F825E7CA1C2D27F26B055C3C300EFD7C5872A8D6835
  • createdAtMillis - 1687948759861
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 1
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1673673074430935041621E46D684B75C44A0E50F825E7CA1C2D27F26B055C3C300EFD7C5872A8D6835