Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-23 11:34:02 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 346BE4F16E9D7FF9659EE9956690A8EF79B83AAA70DEF9092145693B09FBCED4
Participant Details

Original Note:

This is an attempt at face-saving by way of disinformation. A competent child-focussed + serious organisation wouldn’t have needed ‘clarification’ of information clearly detailed in the review itself. The early ‘analyses’ clearly weren’t as they couldn’t have read the review. https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1782551222563553528
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 346BE4F16E9D7FF9659EE9956690A8EF79B83AAA70DEF9092145693B09FBCED4
  • createdAtMillis - 1713872042094
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1782551222563553528346BE4F16E9D7FF9659EE9956690A8EF79B83AAA70DEF9092145693B09FBCED4