Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-10-30 09:31:33 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 6FE7F304E701D317303AFDC483DBCCD57E827A8DE09035E91E03BC346C3007C0
Participant Details

Original Note:

This research uses incredibly poor participant recruitment methods; respondents had to self-select into joining the organisation, and then self-select into participating; the results only represent those in the group, not broad queer opinions. Also, T+ individuals can be LGB. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2476

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1718910023919665633
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 6FE7F304E701D317303AFDC483DBCCD57E827A8DE09035E91E03BC346C3007C0
  • createdAtMillis - 1698658293552
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • 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 - 17189100239196656336FE7F304E701D317303AFDC483DBCCD57E827A8DE09035E91E03BC346C3007C0