Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-01-10 03:32:23 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 40FA8668471338250A1AB216F51FD98CB106EC8852CB9437BF71C2DA7451F782
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 - 40FA8668471338250A1AB216F51FD98CB106EC8852CB9437BF71C2DA7451F782
  • createdAtMillis - 1704857543564
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 174485349019353118740FA8668471338250A1AB216F51FD98CB106EC8852CB9437BF71C2DA7451F782