Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-02-03 14:17:48 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 656651C247894B0433C4C0C718423E33CD4BB867254D49FD9818BAB721F78708
Participant Details

Original Note:

Some of Eysenck's papers were found "unsafe" because the quality of the data was doubtful and the results were not reproducible. Moreover, concerns were raised as early as the late 1980s, well before Eysenck's death. https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/HE-Enquiry.pdf https://www.science.org/content/article/misconduct-allegations-push-psychology-hero-his-pedestal

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1753303604612722854
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 656651C247894B0433C4C0C718423E33CD4BB867254D49FD9818BAB721F78708
  • createdAtMillis - 1706969868025
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • 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 - 1753303604612722854656651C247894B0433C4C0C718423E33CD4BB867254D49FD9818BAB721F78708