Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-16 17:04:05 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: AE17C3F480612777160391D289DCEF789BCEFDA0A0FC31D8843198752EFB5A61
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 - AE17C3F480612777160391D289DCEF789BCEFDA0A0FC31D8843198752EFB5A61
  • createdAtMillis - 1715879045155
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 1
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1791037229797724303AE17C3F480612777160391D289DCEF789BCEFDA0A0FC31D8843198752EFB5A61