Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-04-16 23:06:36 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 2F56ED6827030AA9584929AAA3D99CD710CE683735F368EB6333E9AC1B59C587
Participant Details

Original Note:

No note needed on this tweet- it is factually correct. & the article subheading states; "The misstatements... are part of a pattern that has raised questions about how the Supreme Court justice views his obligation to accurately report details about his finances to the public ".

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1647680458061393922
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 2F56ED6827030AA9584929AAA3D99CD710CE683735F368EB6333E9AC1B59C587
  • createdAtMillis - 1681686396440
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 16476804580613939222F56ED6827030AA9584929AAA3D99CD710CE683735F368EB6333E9AC1B59C587