Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-13 16:36:46 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: BA55CACD5A07308533F4DDD4D4B8D1F85EC683F2D3BA0C194703D4FBA353D584
Participant Details

Original Note:

This has been answered over and over -here it is (point 6) in 2002. Some might have further doubts, but anyone who just didn't bother to Google it at all is not looking for the truth, but lazily farming engagement, and it's not good for anyone to indulge them. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1779154232303652925
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - BA55CACD5A07308533F4DDD4D4B8D1F85EC683F2D3BA0C194703D4FBA353D584
  • createdAtMillis - 1713026206042
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - 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 - 1779154232303652925BA55CACD5A07308533F4DDD4D4B8D1F85EC683F2D3BA0C194703D4FBA353D584