Birdwatch Archive - Rating Details

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-09-03 00:10:24 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 5F3FEEEA4B65ED345DAE872C369EBD16D567DEAC24EF4BC2780EA275F1673238
Participant Details

Original Note:

This is anecdotal evidence, meaning it is heavily unreliable because the tweet is only a personal testimony. As a result, no logical explanation can be deduced from this. Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence?wprov=sfti1 https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-021-00293-2

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

noteId - 1698020115344937369
participantId -
raterParticipantId - 5F3FEEEA4B65ED345DAE872C369EBD16D567DEAC24EF4BC2780EA275F1673238
createdAtMillis - 1693699824273
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 - 0
notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
notHelpfulOutdated - 0
notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
ratingsId - 16980201153449373695F3FEEEA4B65ED345DAE872C369EBD16D567DEAC24EF4BC2780EA275F1673238