Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-10-12 22:04:16 UTC - SOMEWHAT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 8AF449EB38995694A23AF6074C3A8AF1590401C0071F8725B1D3D6D01A6792FE
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 - 8AF449EB38995694A23AF6074C3A8AF1590401C0071F8725B1D3D6D01A6792FE
  • createdAtMillis - 1697148256349
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - SOMEWHAT_HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • 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 - 17123049984520110788AF449EB38995694A23AF6074C3A8AF1590401C0071F8725B1D3D6D01A6792FE