Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-19 22:33:21 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 75835AAEACDE09EBB36618A7C1358B717671C0A99F5CB945FB5902070D0577EC
Participant Details

Original Note:

Cass was a systematic review. Part of the review critiqued all of the guidelines mentioned in the post and found serious deficiencies in all of them, including poor quality evidence and many circular references. That is why the Cass report contradicts them. https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1781438874738217322
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 75835AAEACDE09EBB36618A7C1358B717671C0A99F5CB945FB5902070D0577EC
  • createdAtMillis - 1713566001517
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 178143887473821732275835AAEACDE09EBB36618A7C1358B717671C0A99F5CB945FB5902070D0577EC