Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-04 23:39:55 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: D06629D605624F7667C29A5C6A0076A6308ED07DFAB9B1B004373854F26C740C
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 - D06629D605624F7667C29A5C6A0076A6308ED07DFAB9B1B004373854F26C740C
  • createdAtMillis - 1714865995838
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 1
  • 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 - 1786399591555891591D06629D605624F7667C29A5C6A0076A6308ED07DFAB9B1B004373854F26C740C