Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-06-28 00:01:54 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: AEC4503F58ACFEE2AAF75C75E05F49DD23CE20D0578F605C26085B52C1FED541
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 - AEC4503F58ACFEE2AAF75C75E05F49DD23CE20D0578F605C26085B52C1FED541
  • createdAtMillis - 1687910514607
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1673673074430935041AEC4503F58ACFEE2AAF75C75E05F49DD23CE20D0578F605C26085B52C1FED541