Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-17 10:42:06 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 61E455FAAC4B0367899C2C10D9B40B5A1F98221E387F01CF6AE4D4C3022236F2
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 - 61E455FAAC4B0367899C2C10D9B40B5A1F98221E387F01CF6AE4D4C3022236F2
  • createdAtMillis - 1713350526046
  • 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 - 178030375361199353761E455FAAC4B0367899C2C10D9B40B5A1F98221E387F01CF6AE4D4C3022236F2