Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-03 15:04:40 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 85DABADDF8A7AB76E494EF62DB1C364CC77333FF3552C0DEB5A4EC1725896D9C
Participant Details

Original Note:

The proposed note engages in circular reasoning, as it uses the Cass Review itself as supposed proof of the reliability of the Cass Review. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1786399591555891591
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 85DABADDF8A7AB76E494EF62DB1C364CC77333FF3552C0DEB5A4EC1725896D9C
  • createdAtMillis - 1714748680119
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 1
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 178639959155589159185DABADDF8A7AB76E494EF62DB1C364CC77333FF3552C0DEB5A4EC1725896D9C