Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-22 22:24:36 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 43F67F97671694D4C67755D5B9BA6357E1145896FD9EC3DDC48BD474B6A1D70F
Participant Details

Original Note:

The original poster has written an enormous thread explaining why the Cass Review made improper use of the BMJ review cited in proposed note. You cannot use the review as a source when the OP has already explained why it was not used in a valid way!

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1782075724108837015
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 43F67F97671694D4C67755D5B9BA6357E1145896FD9EC3DDC48BD474B6A1D70F
  • createdAtMillis - 1713824676716
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 178207572410883701543F67F97671694D4C67755D5B9BA6357E1145896FD9EC3DDC48BD474B6A1D70F