Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-08 19:03:56 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 4D34BB7E26145D843C1477714FA5B7E69AB3777ABF8F37967C12DFEA61F78782
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 - 4D34BB7E26145D843C1477714FA5B7E69AB3777ABF8F37967C12DFEA61F78782
  • createdAtMillis - 1715195036945
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 17882072358075558524D34BB7E26145D843C1477714FA5B7E69AB3777ABF8F37967C12DFEA61F78782