Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-01 23:42:28 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: F28515BB0E4E3325BAF0FC9E0DAD802983FBF14C25364D4E62A1FE9ED417E27C
Participant Details

Original Note:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/10/02/when-data-journalism-goes-wrong/ This article does a good job of explaining the flawed methodology of the study that generated this implausible data. It was based on self-reported data (which is unreliable) and multiplied responses uniformly by 1.9.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1819087921850261949
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - F28515BB0E4E3325BAF0FC9E0DAD802983FBF14C25364D4E62A1FE9ED417E27C
  • createdAtMillis - 1722555748129
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 1
  • 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 - 1819087921850261949F28515BB0E4E3325BAF0FC9E0DAD802983FBF14C25364D4E62A1FE9ED417E27C