Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-06-27 13:16:29 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: CE4A398547FC71955CDDFDC65E60FB2E28C6C9D33935D13A5F80E8F4D56CD67A
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 - CE4A398547FC71955CDDFDC65E60FB2E28C6C9D33935D13A5F80E8F4D56CD67A
  • createdAtMillis - 1687871789834
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1673673074430935041CE4A398547FC71955CDDFDC65E60FB2E28C6C9D33935D13A5F80E8F4D56CD67A