Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-04-12 20:25:43 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 8F80B5E0514493EC3BE151EB8DB482531F0D4671B9F7D869FB68AC8633455BD5
Participant Details

Original Note:

Proposed note omits the larger context: this is the same basis that officials had previously blocked same-sex marriage in defiance of court orders. It is a reasonable assumption that this is the intent of the bill here, given the recent history. Not misleading, no note needed. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/same-sex-marriage-kentucky-kim-davis.html?smid=pl-share

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1645962109845487616
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 8F80B5E0514493EC3BE151EB8DB482531F0D4671B9F7D869FB68AC8633455BD5
  • createdAtMillis - 1681331143952
  • 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 - 1
  • 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 - 16459621098454876168F80B5E0514493EC3BE151EB8DB482531F0D4671B9F7D869FB68AC8633455BD5