Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-09-01 03:04:18 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 3E9CA3F8B8DC487EDAD9B7E132F038EC45B42D073F11C539AC8E8FB8F560354D
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN. It's ironic that the CN writer here thinks it suitable to try and "debunk" a peer reviewed medical journal published by a world-renowned medical expert by appealing to two anonymous, non-peer reviewed "fact checkers" with no medical expertise at all.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1697381557311594644
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 3E9CA3F8B8DC487EDAD9B7E132F038EC45B42D073F11C539AC8E8FB8F560354D
  • createdAtMillis - 1693537458506
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 16973815573115946443E9CA3F8B8DC487EDAD9B7E132F038EC45B42D073F11C539AC8E8FB8F560354D