Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-10-26 09:10:41 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 3BD752FC207FCD5A88ADD67E40238CE4DEED0CA2B3C6F9A7FFA8281A52826E65
Participant Details

Original Note:

The proposed note cites sources stating that the recounts produced the same results as the original count. This is not disputed. The issue, which the tweet provides verified .gov evidence for, is that many of the ballots originally counted and recounted were forgeries.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1717364807727514065
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 3BD752FC207FCD5A88ADD67E40238CE4DEED0CA2B3C6F9A7FFA8281A52826E65
  • createdAtMillis - 1698311441231
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • 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 - 17173648077275140653BD752FC207FCD5A88ADD67E40238CE4DEED0CA2B3C6F9A7FFA8281A52826E65