Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-16 20:23:48 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 7DF5E62CCD36BCE3DFD12C90305B48211CCCD5F0543E28D9DA90C4789CB0474D
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 - 7DF5E62CCD36BCE3DFD12C90305B48211CCCD5F0543E28D9DA90C4789CB0474D
  • createdAtMillis - 1713299028016
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 17803037536119935377DF5E62CCD36BCE3DFD12C90305B48211CCCD5F0543E28D9DA90C4789CB0474D