Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-08 23:18:26 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 405708E484769741339AFB7703FCEE00443260A55D78514B5F999AA73FAA0CBF
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN. Notes complain that there is no evidence that this particular shark is 392 years old. User doesn't need to prove this. Are we really expecting users to upload birth certificates whenever they state the age of a living creature shown in media?

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1788207235807555852
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 405708E484769741339AFB7703FCEE00443260A55D78514B5F999AA73FAA0CBF
  • createdAtMillis - 1715210306353
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • 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 - 1788207235807555852405708E484769741339AFB7703FCEE00443260A55D78514B5F999AA73FAA0CBF