Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-09 22:02:31 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: B3FA615F7E84BB79C7690B391DDE7778FA08B8C37D8D07B682B71F4EFF36E0E0
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN The "point by point" debunking cited just cherry-picks minor criticisms in order to seem comprehensive, & redefines terms to misrepresent data Even if all these criticisms are taken at face value (which they should not be), the central thesis of the OP is not invalidated https://t.co/bvgXV7Wj5T

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1821839369390510082
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - B3FA615F7E84BB79C7690B391DDE7778FA08B8C37D8D07B682B71F4EFF36E0E0
  • createdAtMillis - 1723240951296
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1821839369390510082B3FA615F7E84BB79C7690B391DDE7778FA08B8C37D8D07B682B71F4EFF36E0E0