Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-12 05:10:19 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 53BF5AF48010742F3A00F60B84D4A58914BD2A63ED3DEA5F17C51BD8561F74D3
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN. The headline and tweet correctly summarize the results of the study. There is no evidence that the study was methodologically flawed or that the peer review process was flawed. Save your objects for the comments.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1778604888173236694
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 53BF5AF48010742F3A00F60B84D4A58914BD2A63ED3DEA5F17C51BD8561F74D3
  • createdAtMillis - 1712898619851
  • 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 - 177860488817323669453BF5AF48010742F3A00F60B84D4A58914BD2A63ED3DEA5F17C51BD8561F74D3