Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-17 09:08:22 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 837D0132CE99D6C5690768CE0AA32C1E6E12229083B48ADB7F3F9FD00CB352A2
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 - 837D0132CE99D6C5690768CE0AA32C1E6E12229083B48ADB7F3F9FD00CB352A2
  • createdAtMillis - 1713344902859
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1780303753611993537837D0132CE99D6C5690768CE0AA32C1E6E12229083B48ADB7F3F9FD00CB352A2