Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2022-08-12 22:52:18 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 679D2CAE5D926F9CEBBC26CE83B3CC60
Participant Details

Original Note:

The judge didn’t specify why he recused himself other than referring to the relevant law. Here’s the recusal: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157.186.0_3.pdf The law in question lists several reasons for recusal other than concerns about impartiality: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1558165173629702145
  • participantId - 679D2CAE5D926F9CEBBC26CE83B3CC60
  • raterParticipantId -
  • createdAtMillis - 1660344738939
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1558165173629702145679D2CAE5D926F9CEBBC26CE83B3CC60