Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-02-01 17:08:44 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: F19BF5E625EAF859F46A90038B9E2DAC7E50E800FF37D2CD8EDAD6169994EF1E
Participant Details

Original Note:

This article from WSJ is an opinion piece rather than a news article. It's incorrect to say "this is how the WSJ covered it". https://newsliteracy.wsj.com/news-opinion/

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1753026637090676755
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - F19BF5E625EAF859F46A90038B9E2DAC7E50E800FF37D2CD8EDAD6169994EF1E
  • createdAtMillis - 1706807324013
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 1753026637090676755F19BF5E625EAF859F46A90038B9E2DAC7E50E800FF37D2CD8EDAD6169994EF1E