Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-10-06 15:42:54 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 398E1BCB8974E4ED15D7C9482D7E72C974AF2ED88B62DD84F7AFDDB0DB58F393
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 - 398E1BCB8974E4ED15D7C9482D7E72C974AF2ED88B62DD84F7AFDDB0DB58F393
  • createdAtMillis - 1696606974449
  • 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 - 1709662358333734952398E1BCB8974E4ED15D7C9482D7E72C974AF2ED88B62DD84F7AFDDB0DB58F393