Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-10-06 16:35:23 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 31F8DE9E5392D4B640EF89F87C6D7916DB64A0028C179761D4F58154CAF1304F
Participant Details

Original Note:

Stop abusing CN. “There is no peer reviewed evidence of DNA….”. This is irrelevant. Yes, the finding is recent and has not yet made it into the literature. That does NOT make it misleading. Also, it is abundantly clear from the post that this is an opinion.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1710198333451514149
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 31F8DE9E5392D4B640EF89F87C6D7916DB64A0028C179761D4F58154CAF1304F
  • createdAtMillis - 1696610123239
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 171019833345151414931F8DE9E5392D4B640EF89F87C6D7916DB64A0028C179761D4F58154CAF1304F