Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-06-17 14:12:45 UTC - SOMEWHAT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 94B6F04E12A87BEF529152E8375CF5FBBC5E0DCA0B97D9F138E60693E1FD01AC
Participant Details

Original Note:

The case at issue was about whether people of Indian descent were “white” for the purposes of the U.S.’s naturalization law, not for visa quotas. Under the explicitly racist pre-1965 law, only “free white” people could become citizens. The Supreme Court rejected the argument. https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1669923293531459584?s=20

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1670032584405819394
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 94B6F04E12A87BEF529152E8375CF5FBBC5E0DCA0B97D9F138E60693E1FD01AC
  • createdAtMillis - 1687011165772
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - SOMEWHAT_HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 167003258440581939494B6F04E12A87BEF529152E8375CF5FBBC5E0DCA0B97D9F138E60693E1FD01AC