Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-10-10 20:32:50 UTC - SOMEWHAT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 989E7636C637E27F45A0E3BCCCBFF0D12B75881CBBC1EDB91009230DE3FDEDD6
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN - The other note mentions a newer pew research study but disregards how the new one directly contradicts the older pew data which the economist article uses and ignores the fact that both can't be correct at the same time, one or both must be heavily biased.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1844409548804600101
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 989E7636C637E27F45A0E3BCCCBFF0D12B75881CBBC1EDB91009230DE3FDEDD6
  • createdAtMillis - 1728592370212
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - SOMEWHAT_HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1844409548804600101989E7636C637E27F45A0E3BCCCBFF0D12B75881CBBC1EDB91009230DE3FDEDD6