Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-01-09 23:15:58 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 0D4FEDE1FEAEE4536A4ADD14EB9AEE1B2D946EA4297B9CB7C6E190FDE6B294AF
Participant Details

Original Note:

While Perceptive Riverbank Canary is likely right that "copying any text without attribution was plagiarism", Wikipedia's ToU are irrelevant. Even if Wikipedia had allowed use without attribution (or if the use falls under "fair use"), it would still be considered plagiarism. https://www.google.com/search?q=plagiarism

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1744853490193531187
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 0D4FEDE1FEAEE4536A4ADD14EB9AEE1B2D946EA4297B9CB7C6E190FDE6B294AF
  • createdAtMillis - 1704842158263
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 1
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • 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 - 17448534901935311870D4FEDE1FEAEE4536A4ADD14EB9AEE1B2D946EA4297B9CB7C6E190FDE6B294AF