Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-17 08:01:35 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 61A969F941D134AC87666E580DCF9BE5825210DF33B8E3899FFC1E0AEA1AEAC6
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN - Article is clearly the opinion of the author, and the Cass Review has not been universally accepted. Many community notes touting the validity of the Cass Review cite the Cass Review itself as proof that the Cass Review is solid - which is poor citation practice.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1780303753611993537
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 61A969F941D134AC87666E580DCF9BE5825210DF33B8E3899FFC1E0AEA1AEAC6
  • createdAtMillis - 1713340895769
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 178030375361199353761A969F941D134AC87666E580DCF9BE5825210DF33B8E3899FFC1E0AEA1AEAC6