Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-21 14:46:05 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 1EC3D08890C723A0EB1874184342FDD34EB28E99455446A1D1BFC0909288B5A5
Participant Details

Original Note:

The note is made in bad faith by someone who doesn't like (or understand) study methodology or publishing. It contains no evidence and does not in any factual way address the OP. If you have to link to a "future rebuttal", you don't have enough to stand on for a note.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1792623474952818873
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 1EC3D08890C723A0EB1874184342FDD34EB28E99455446A1D1BFC0909288B5A5
  • createdAtMillis - 1716302765675
  • 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 - 17926234749528188731EC3D08890C723A0EB1874184342FDD34EB28E99455446A1D1BFC0909288B5A5