Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-05-23 22:30:23 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 516FE32592699D393441750B1C724E4690C84C632A726DC13141F97B02F46A25
Participant Details

Original Note:

The Court of Appeal found “the Defendant was responsible for the unlawful publication”. Before appealing, the Defendant must seek permission from the Court of Appeal to appeal to the U.K. Supreme Court or request permission from the higher court directly. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/cadwalladr-to-pay-million-pound-damages/ https://inforrm.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Banks-v-Cadwalladr-CA-order.pdf

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1661104449069236224
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 516FE32592699D393441750B1C724E4690C84C632A726DC13141F97B02F46A25
  • createdAtMillis - 1684881023226
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 1
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 1661104449069236224516FE32592699D393441750B1C724E4690C84C632A726DC13141F97B02F46A25