Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-10-02 14:59:05 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: DB07E7F4889D04C085496753E7352AE5C5E11B1F48D70F057ED0B292735C71EE
Participant Details

Original Note:

The Cass Review is not "widely acclaimed". If it was, the author of the original note would have posted more than a link to Wikipedia. In fact, credible critics have found major flaws in the Cass Review's methodology and findings. https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/news-and-features/latest-news/detail/2024/04/22/detailed-response-to-the-cass-review%27s-final-report https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/news-events/news/rcpch-responds-publication-final-report-cass-review https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-k-s-cass-review-badly-fails-trans-children/ https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/06/24/cass-review-working-group-flaws-trans/

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1841475190439477282
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - DB07E7F4889D04C085496753E7352AE5C5E11B1F48D70F057ED0B292735C71EE
  • createdAtMillis - 1727881145081
  • 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 - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • 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 - 1841475190439477282DB07E7F4889D04C085496753E7352AE5C5E11B1F48D70F057ED0B292735C71EE