Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-08-26 00:22:59 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: D6104F15200FCA0EA622702F62F088F081EE19393C5618C06978E223336F7FB4
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 - D6104F15200FCA0EA622702F62F088F081EE19393C5618C06978E223336F7FB4
  • createdAtMillis - 1693009379070
  • 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 - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 1
  • 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 - 1695201347035857403D6104F15200FCA0EA622702F62F088F081EE19393C5618C06978E223336F7FB4