Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-01-07 01:06:20 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: C89DE659E299B60E0F2A4A128C479749BC4812D3BC4B4ED6E09E7A0D21AE4151
Participant Details

Original Note:

This take is flawed and highly refuted by well known psychologists. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121155220.htm

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1742312006030442741
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - C89DE659E299B60E0F2A4A128C479749BC4812D3BC4B4ED6E09E7A0D21AE4151
  • createdAtMillis - 1704589580042
  • 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 - 1742312006030442741C89DE659E299B60E0F2A4A128C479749BC4812D3BC4B4ED6E09E7A0D21AE4151