Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-04-09 23:23:29 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 36F186BA17FE9417411C1F291FD67D4C81C43CC42BDE3C7B803B83EF522BFB86
Participant Details

Original Note:

Re: proposed note saying "misleading"--own source contradicts note, points out that the previous administration *was*, in fact, directly ignoring a SCOTUS ruling in its actions. Not a mere processing delay. No note necessary.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1645130292783349765
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 36F186BA17FE9417411C1F291FD67D4C81C43CC42BDE3C7B803B83EF522BFB86
  • createdAtMillis - 1681082609084
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • 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 - 164513029278334976536F186BA17FE9417411C1F291FD67D4C81C43CC42BDE3C7B803B83EF522BFB86