Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-01-10 00:46:36 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: AC5D7F2BB5D9C50403F42EB0E11CFB3CB503A9464AEBAE7D9E2C5B239AD10D99
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 - AC5D7F2BB5D9C50403F42EB0E11CFB3CB503A9464AEBAE7D9E2C5B239AD10D99
  • createdAtMillis - 1704847596257
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • 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 - 1744853490193531187AC5D7F2BB5D9C50403F42EB0E11CFB3CB503A9464AEBAE7D9E2C5B239AD10D99