Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-02-02 08:41:37 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: EA610B9543898EF6B575B26F4C6A83D1682F8F7F027C98643391AF6F141486CB
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 - EA610B9543898EF6B575B26F4C6A83D1682F8F7F027C98643391AF6F141486CB
  • createdAtMillis - 1706863297100
  • 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 - 0
  • 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 - 1753303604612722854EA610B9543898EF6B575B26F4C6A83D1682F8F7F027C98643391AF6F141486CB