Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-01-09 22:00:27 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 6B1619D658460D9A3E9B1ECA44B2AA283BD279C1182A38888D36A1B7E761A85A
Participant Details

Original Note:

This is a repost of an article that got a note. It contains the following flaws 1. Uses a “per transaction” methodology debunked by Cambridge university 2. Uses a 2-year old data set that has since fundamentally changed 3. Only investigates negative externalities https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/14/3/35

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1744834823271723014
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 6B1619D658460D9A3E9B1ECA44B2AA283BD279C1182A38888D36A1B7E761A85A
  • createdAtMillis - 1704837627506
  • 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 - 17448348232717230146B1619D658460D9A3E9B1ECA44B2AA283BD279C1182A38888D36A1B7E761A85A