Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-10 05:44:46 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: F51A40F8A667DA8E6DB506917AA4C70076A116C84C0597FB1272946D5FFEE9AC
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 - F51A40F8A667DA8E6DB506917AA4C70076A116C84C0597FB1272946D5FFEE9AC
  • createdAtMillis - 1715319886734
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1788207235807555852F51A40F8A667DA8E6DB506917AA4C70076A116C84C0597FB1272946D5FFEE9AC