Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-01 12:56:44 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: F06778C17FDD6E515CAA2B634C14D7E5B0348B853ECFA3994DB9105752A35D28
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN. The Cass Review has a poor methodology as described. https://osf.io/preprints/osf/uhndk https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/Public%20Policies/2024/17.05.24%20Response%20Cass%20Review%20FINAL%20with%20ed%20note.pdf?_t=1716075965 https://epath.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/EPATH-Response-on-Cass-statement_Final_21-05-2024.pdf https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2024.2328249

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1813287315726340222
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - F06778C17FDD6E515CAA2B634C14D7E5B0348B853ECFA3994DB9105752A35D28
  • createdAtMillis - 1722517004605
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • 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 - 1813287315726340222F06778C17FDD6E515CAA2B634C14D7E5B0348B853ECFA3994DB9105752A35D28