Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-10-06 20:09:23 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: F735563C1D6CACAE98B239A5BF3B6B29334E5A32093D655B66C4A4A96408409D
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 - F735563C1D6CACAE98B239A5BF3B6B29334E5A32093D655B66C4A4A96408409D
  • createdAtMillis - 1696622963877
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1710198333451514149F735563C1D6CACAE98B239A5BF3B6B29334E5A32093D655B66C4A4A96408409D