Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-16 08:00:52 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: F398B6252AB94F54BEEEE5C1748F072D3ECF6496149897BC24C75DD9734202DD
Participant Details

Original Note:

This post could imply that the Cass Report's evidentiary basis for its conclusions includes fabricated individuals. This is not the case. Rather, this post refers to whether or not the illustrations of individuals throughout the the report are real persons. https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1780016798881943930
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - F398B6252AB94F54BEEEE5C1748F072D3ECF6496149897BC24C75DD9734202DD
  • createdAtMillis - 1713254452593
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 1780016798881943930F398B6252AB94F54BEEEE5C1748F072D3ECF6496149897BC24C75DD9734202DD