Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-28 21:06:32 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 4A77DFFF32DACB9CBF68EB68B6810164FC4EAE8DC9FD69865B0FFFEDADA1C5C5
Participant Details

Original Note:

The other note should definitely be included here. The telegraph article 'neglects' to mention the low number of participants and lack of feasible verification methods, and this is important context to understanding how meaningful and conclusive this research is. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00192-024-05779-3

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1795333095471653185
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 4A77DFFF32DACB9CBF68EB68B6810164FC4EAE8DC9FD69865B0FFFEDADA1C5C5
  • createdAtMillis - 1716930392831
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 17953330954716531854A77DFFF32DACB9CBF68EB68B6810164FC4EAE8DC9FD69865B0FFFEDADA1C5C5