Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-14 03:51:33 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 1824649A73E6827415928ABD72647A6D89C349F85C5BD0E6CD70FA8112718EC8
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN/Personal opinion. Even if we treat this as a fact claim of "The Cass Review is bad", a defence of Cass is not sufficient as a defence of the review. Peer review exists exactly because position & credentials are not sufficient to ensure papers meet an acceptable standard.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1778801303084232912
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 1824649A73E6827415928ABD72647A6D89C349F85C5BD0E6CD70FA8112718EC8
  • createdAtMillis - 1713066693151
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 1
  • 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 - 17788013030842329121824649A73E6827415928ABD72647A6D89C349F85C5BD0E6CD70FA8112718EC8