Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-12 17:08:15 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 964E986000734735C05EF571552B117B33B0A7B7F8ADB47C58183BF2A568A501
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 - 964E986000734735C05EF571552B117B33B0A7B7F8ADB47C58183BF2A568A501
  • createdAtMillis - 1712941695360
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 1
  • 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 - 1778604888173236694964E986000734735C05EF571552B117B33B0A7B7F8ADB47C58183BF2A568A501