Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-09-01 21:45:13 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: AB84BA7312A27E41A5340E8B03376F0CF05D2260B3242B5AD527D24B17A6D511
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 - AB84BA7312A27E41A5340E8B03376F0CF05D2260B3242B5AD527D24B17A6D511
  • createdAtMillis - 1693604713470
  • 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 - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • 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 - 1697381557311594644AB84BA7312A27E41A5340E8B03376F0CF05D2260B3242B5AD527D24B17A6D511