Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-13 15:51:33 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: C9065BB0B29451FDE96D92088FA465A642D6D77E512DBF9C3588E9C1ED3AD280
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 - C9065BB0B29451FDE96D92088FA465A642D6D77E512DBF9C3588E9C1ED3AD280
  • createdAtMillis - 1713023493166
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 1
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • 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 - 1779154232303652925C9065BB0B29451FDE96D92088FA465A642D6D77E512DBF9C3588E9C1ED3AD280