Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-21 17:50:33 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: EEFE40AD2AC88D7A5F56CBB2D5CAADCB95D3A5E9F076F9FE051A490B3E44E423
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 - EEFE40AD2AC88D7A5F56CBB2D5CAADCB95D3A5E9F076F9FE051A490B3E44E423
  • createdAtMillis - 1713721833319
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1782075724108837015EEFE40AD2AC88D7A5F56CBB2D5CAADCB95D3A5E9F076F9FE051A490B3E44E423