Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-08-26 09:40:28 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 3909DAE55D96B73DC253501C0CCE63736B7809724126D99BADC51C841E27E408
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 - 1695201564833599727
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 3909DAE55D96B73DC253501C0CCE63736B7809724126D99BADC51C841E27E408
  • createdAtMillis - 1693042828951
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 16952015648335997273909DAE55D96B73DC253501C0CCE63736B7809724126D99BADC51C841E27E408