Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-10-06 18:42:31 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: A6AE74543C374C2A50E33BA6DD1BFF33663AC034BA252934ABA960B75B25C9EF
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 - A6AE74543C374C2A50E33BA6DD1BFF33663AC034BA252934ABA960B75B25C9EF
  • createdAtMillis - 1696617751919
  • 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 - 1
  • 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 - 1710198333451514149A6AE74543C374C2A50E33BA6DD1BFF33663AC034BA252934ABA960B75B25C9EF