Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-10-02 14:46:02 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: C2B03985F6411DC7FCFE012B63594EF62B592EFF3AB93D7E4E9F748372912482
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 - C2B03985F6411DC7FCFE012B63594EF62B592EFF3AB93D7E4E9F748372912482
  • createdAtMillis - 1696257962032
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 1
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 1
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1708739133462434179C2B03985F6411DC7FCFE012B63594EF62B592EFF3AB93D7E4E9F748372912482