Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-08-26 07:35:14 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 800777E4ADC48931C223FECAD8C01C072CB5C2ABFB49CF04A11BE42975E7ABBA
Participant Details

Original Note:

Fox appealed on 4 grounds, including that the original judge erred in not defining the word "racist". The appeal found that the OJ had *not* erred in not defining the word racist. No definition of the word "racist" has come out of either the original judgement or this appeal. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2023/1000

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1695201347035857403
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 800777E4ADC48931C223FECAD8C01C072CB5C2ABFB49CF04A11BE42975E7ABBA
  • createdAtMillis - 1693035314671
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • 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 - 1695201347035857403800777E4ADC48931C223FECAD8C01C072CB5C2ABFB49CF04A11BE42975E7ABBA