Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-11-12 17:44:15 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: F39E953AFC016F50787576617028A0CCCF713EC8233DE56EDECAEF48D4BA1697
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN 1. The comment "interesting" doesn't warrant a note, it doesn't even imply agreement. 2. Ad hominem attacks don't convince any serious thinker. 3. J. Sacks never mentions a written agreement. The note pertaining to that is therefore irrelevant.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1856214442628862296
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - F39E953AFC016F50787576617028A0CCCF713EC8233DE56EDECAEF48D4BA1697
  • createdAtMillis - 1731433455975
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 1
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 1
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1856214442628862296F39E953AFC016F50787576617028A0CCCF713EC8233DE56EDECAEF48D4BA1697