Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-02 12:47:42 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 4A94D88711D2CA43FEA83E06878755BCCBC347AE14936EDD9711C379112B4DEB
Participant Details

Original Note:

That "who's" should be "who", as any reputable writer would know. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/whos-whose/#:~:text=To%20recap%2C%20who%20is%20the,who%20is%20or%20who%20has.&text=Who's%20is%20a%20contraction.,make%20pronunciation%20easier%20and%20quicker.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1819346684339507552
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 4A94D88711D2CA43FEA83E06878755BCCBC347AE14936EDD9711C379112B4DEB
  • createdAtMillis - 1722602862267
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 18193466843395075524A94D88711D2CA43FEA83E06878755BCCBC347AE14936EDD9711C379112B4DEB