Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-12-15 22:46:24 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 31E9C8E88435B3892249CB59A91CDC71D3D0E47894B34A5CE9EB641F3B30242D
Participant Details

Original Note:

The proposed note is an exercise in speculation & should be in the comments. The Lancet letter relied on by the note-writer was also speculative in nature (a point acknowledged by the authors) & has been criticised in the same journal. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01683-0/fulltext

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1868290877862371462
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 31E9C8E88435B3892249CB59A91CDC71D3D0E47894B34A5CE9EB641F3B30242D
  • createdAtMillis - 1734302784148
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 186829087786237146231E9C8E88435B3892249CB59A91CDC71D3D0E47894B34A5CE9EB641F3B30242D