Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-12 15:16:09 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: B76E065EC80D9D24C156FF8F6E96284C6AB36AE26357FEDF369ECE65BCF7064D
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 - B76E065EC80D9D24C156FF8F6E96284C6AB36AE26357FEDF369ECE65BCF7064D
  • createdAtMillis - 1712934969729
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - NOT_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 - 1778604888173236694B76E065EC80D9D24C156FF8F6E96284C6AB36AE26357FEDF369ECE65BCF7064D