Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-01-08 21:11:13 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 11E0496B15A8AF9C1F796CA0694C4A6CA75DFC75EAC54165C5ABA1C9B4D062AB
Participant Details

Original Note:

Einzige Quelle ist umstrittenes RS-Review das einen möglichen Nutzen („suggests“) selbst bezweifelt: „Studies suffered from a critical risk of bias. effects were variable in magnitude and generally of low precision.“ Hochwertigere Studien finden keinen signifikanten Nutzen. https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/impact-non-pharmaceutical-interventions-on-covid-19-transmission/the-royal-society-covid-19-examining-the-effectiveness-of-non-pharmaceutical-interventions-report.pdf https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full?utm_source=mp-fotoscapes

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1744058358485655988
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 11E0496B15A8AF9C1F796CA0694C4A6CA75DFC75EAC54165C5ABA1C9B4D062AB
  • createdAtMillis - 1704748273516
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 1
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 174405835848565598811E0496B15A8AF9C1F796CA0694C4A6CA75DFC75EAC54165C5ABA1C9B4D062AB