Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-12-08 17:41:44 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 8FBE708A22C1B8EA3452A555E908134A5B2CBE05E4C98A0453918D9D85A68314
Participant Details

Original Note:

The reasoning here is known as the "Chinese robber fallacy"—the idea that a large number of anecdotes is strong evidence, even if it is not. https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chinese-robbers/

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1865658809257230427
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 8FBE708A22C1B8EA3452A555E908134A5B2CBE05E4C98A0453918D9D85A68314
  • createdAtMillis - 1733679704110
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 18656588092572304278FBE708A22C1B8EA3452A555E908134A5B2CBE05E4C98A0453918D9D85A68314