Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-10-06 08:19:18 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: C2928B731E0D85F12E6A130C728F44AEF44B8846D5E21DD51A1938E5DDE7F8BC
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 - C2928B731E0D85F12E6A130C728F44AEF44B8846D5E21DD51A1938E5DDE7F8BC
  • createdAtMillis - 1696580358587
  • 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 - 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 - 1710198333451514149C2928B731E0D85F12E6A130C728F44AEF44B8846D5E21DD51A1938E5DDE7F8BC