Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-10-05 18:42:41 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 2698A3138CED5B0110A7D84E3E9B0FD3CB4C1E717366A83A30677A09BC97B34B
Participant Details

Original Note:

Although the article claims that the Supreme Court previously held in the baker’s favor based on a technicality, that is not what actually occurred in the case. Instead, the Court held that the state of Colorado violated the baker’s freedom of expression. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1709662358333734952
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 2698A3138CED5B0110A7D84E3E9B0FD3CB4C1E717366A83A30677A09BC97B34B
  • createdAtMillis - 1696531361063
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 17096623583337349522698A3138CED5B0110A7D84E3E9B0FD3CB4C1E717366A83A30677A09BC97B34B