Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-09-01 05:54:25 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: A6F59CE594D9E6689EB8F1BAA665FABB098168B5003F7D77378BC9920FFAC7BA
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 - A6F59CE594D9E6689EB8F1BAA665FABB098168B5003F7D77378BC9920FFAC7BA
  • createdAtMillis - 1693547665468
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • 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 - 1697381557311594644A6F59CE594D9E6689EB8F1BAA665FABB098168B5003F7D77378BC9920FFAC7BA