Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-06-27 17:50:00 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: B1FFCD33EF3679C3D8212A944C159720D65BD34247C0711BD43EF5D86DDDFBB4
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 - B1FFCD33EF3679C3D8212A944C159720D65BD34247C0711BD43EF5D86DDDFBB4
  • createdAtMillis - 1687888200320
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1673673074430935041B1FFCD33EF3679C3D8212A944C159720D65BD34247C0711BD43EF5D86DDDFBB4