Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-10-02 17:37:02 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 64C1901B3F3C7E087A28C234AC7D9BA15F9F9FA366BBC06A0198834ECF2DB49C
Participant Details

Original Note:

One of the proposed notes is pure speculation, and another completely misses the point of the study (they were testing for prior bias or prejudice, not "forgetting to take into account". As the other notes point out this is also true even if no study was directly cited NNN

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1708739133462434179
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 64C1901B3F3C7E087A28C234AC7D9BA15F9F9FA366BBC06A0198834ECF2DB49C
  • createdAtMillis - 1696268222502
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • 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 - 170873913346243417964C1901B3F3C7E087A28C234AC7D9BA15F9F9FA366BBC06A0198834ECF2DB49C