Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-03-12 22:37:08 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: AC9CF9CCBC1F7578D0010E875DA62CCEC2D3E371B63B7FB9E5DE50184A88E37F
Participant Details

Original Note:

The comment is factually incorrect. The decision *was* based on evidence: https://segm.org/UK_HighCourt_Rules_PubertyBlockers_Experimental

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1767667008538095816
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - AC9CF9CCBC1F7578D0010E875DA62CCEC2D3E371B63B7FB9E5DE50184A88E37F
  • createdAtMillis - 1710283028287
  • 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 - 1767667008538095816AC9CF9CCBC1F7578D0010E875DA62CCEC2D3E371B63B7FB9E5DE50184A88E37F