Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-01-10 05:30:21 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 9E5FCD2AFC001DC80BDC2F3ECF39ECC2165E56D68F7C0AC30EC3294E49FB560F
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 - 9E5FCD2AFC001DC80BDC2F3ECF39ECC2165E56D68F7C0AC30EC3294E49FB560F
  • createdAtMillis - 1704864621858
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 17448534901935311879E5FCD2AFC001DC80BDC2F3ECF39ECC2165E56D68F7C0AC30EC3294E49FB560F