Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-14 13:38:52 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: B33A0142A0240073A3F9C6FF4F4BD0D65CB28305E3D7E4D82CB3124C23ED3803
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 - B33A0142A0240073A3F9C6FF4F4BD0D65CB28305E3D7E4D82CB3124C23ED3803
  • createdAtMillis - 1713101932218
  • 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 - 1778801303084232912B33A0142A0240073A3F9C6FF4F4BD0D65CB28305E3D7E4D82CB3124C23ED3803