Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-12 16:57:31 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 4CB8751B9241DEE9BBA536EB6BFBCC8C460F22E9C354B0C3287D9C5250D89D3F
Participant Details

Original Note:

Several of these claims appear to be fabricated. For example, the Cass report only briefly mentions blinding to explain what it is; it never criticizes or invalidates any of its studies for not being blinded. https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1778712262959603783
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 4CB8751B9241DEE9BBA536EB6BFBCC8C460F22E9C354B0C3287D9C5250D89D3F
  • createdAtMillis - 1712941051087
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 17787122629596037834CB8751B9241DEE9BBA536EB6BFBCC8C460F22E9C354B0C3287D9C5250D89D3F