Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2022-07-02 09:38:48 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: EE418A5B74937A9409ADF9DF322DFADD098A2A9A95F8F45E01DE23355FFBF468
Participant Details

Original Note:

Justice Thomas was citing the petitioners in the case, not citing nor making a claim of scientific fact. See paragraph 3, which begins at the bottom of page 1 and continues on to page 2. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-1143_3f14.pdf

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1543007065433468934
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - EE418A5B74937A9409ADF9DF322DFADD098A2A9A95F8F45E01DE23355FFBF468
  • createdAtMillis - 1656754728401
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1543007065433468934EE418A5B74937A9409ADF9DF322DFADD098A2A9A95F8F45E01DE23355FFBF468