Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-16 09:40:25 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 530CF7099862F2D9709E9118A8876C60139F098D850065E6415FC46B0F874EF9
Participant Details

Original Note:

A review of the piece in question confirms that the authors gender was never mentioned. The bad review stemmed from quality, not gender. The words of Dominic Sandbruck themselves confirm the review would have been better if, quite simply, the book was better. https://twitter.com/dcsandbrook/status/1791028557793120611?t=D75rhsn_o5pJbaMhDRmvkA&s=19

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1791037229797724303
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 530CF7099862F2D9709E9118A8876C60139F098D850065E6415FC46B0F874EF9
  • createdAtMillis - 1715852425947
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • 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 - 1791037229797724303530CF7099862F2D9709E9118A8876C60139F098D850065E6415FC46B0F874EF9