Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-09-01 05:57:26 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: CFDEAB5DA7113C1F77A9D978F36800AC8321FBDCCDD66271A38BF3223A53E4D2
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 - CFDEAB5DA7113C1F77A9D978F36800AC8321FBDCCDD66271A38BF3223A53E4D2
  • createdAtMillis - 1693547846726
  • 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 - 1
  • 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 - 1697381557311594644CFDEAB5DA7113C1F77A9D978F36800AC8321FBDCCDD66271A38BF3223A53E4D2