Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-11-02 17:28:41 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 10D84468F2BCB29BBD57EE4D5A0533BB83EFC06CC7BD8185A09DD9552E2891D9
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN. Post correctly summarizes study. Proposed note says that study has "obvious flaws", yet a) doesn't name, let alone substantiate, a single one, and b) it should be obvious that CNs with a 280 character limit were not created to argue with the results of scientific studies.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1720035790904799716
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 10D84468F2BCB29BBD57EE4D5A0533BB83EFC06CC7BD8185A09DD9552E2891D9
  • createdAtMillis - 1698946121672
  • 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 - 1
  • 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 - 172003579090479971610D84468F2BCB29BBD57EE4D5A0533BB83EFC06CC7BD8185A09DD9552E2891D9