Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-16 13:59:23 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 8529AACB814C2BF112618431912C74432D7F25978DF40798D5EBB5718EC81F2C
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 - 8529AACB814C2BF112618431912C74432D7F25978DF40798D5EBB5718EC81F2C
  • createdAtMillis - 1715867963437
  • 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 - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • 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 - 17910372297977243038529AACB814C2BF112618431912C74432D7F25978DF40798D5EBB5718EC81F2C