Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-10-17 09:20:36 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 40A2A265061FF05AF932F1F2DD254CA825435E401C36817488116FFF147BEFD9
Participant Details

Original Note:

NN. The OP is presenting pseudoscience as legitimate scholarship. This is incredibly misleading. The second study in the OP is published in a widely disreputable journal. This is very important context, regardless of whether it doesn't fit with your ideological preconceptions

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1712304998452011078
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 40A2A265061FF05AF932F1F2DD254CA825435E401C36817488116FFF147BEFD9
  • createdAtMillis - 1697534436314
  • 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 - 171230499845201107840A2A265061FF05AF932F1F2DD254CA825435E401C36817488116FFF147BEFD9