Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-12 05:51:27 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: DEC5506923A91BB31AA16B370476C912D6A2934FCCB5FB1BD99AF4682DFFAD54
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 - DEC5506923A91BB31AA16B370476C912D6A2934FCCB5FB1BD99AF4682DFFAD54
  • createdAtMillis - 1712901087915
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1778604888173236694DEC5506923A91BB31AA16B370476C912D6A2934FCCB5FB1BD99AF4682DFFAD54