Birdwatch Archive - Rating Details

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-11-17 23:14:11 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: E9B4EC19801349C68F8528FF2AEDDD61E41320C62B84165498F1419606360D2F
Participant Details

Original Note:

Il fallait une majorité de votes "contre" pour refuser le prolongement. Si ceux qui se sont abstenus avaient voté "contre", la prolongation du glyphosate pour 10 ans aurait été rejetée. Ainsi, il est incorrect de prétendre qu'une abstention vaut vote "contre". https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/environnement/ue-scandaleux-erreur-monumentale-les-reactions-apres-le-renouvellement-de-l-autorisation-du-glyphosate-2985965

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

noteId - 1725449011786612896
participantId -
raterParticipantId - E9B4EC19801349C68F8528FF2AEDDD61E41320C62B84165498F1419606360D2F
createdAtMillis - 1700262851671
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 - 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 - 1725449011786612896E9B4EC19801349C68F8528FF2AEDDD61E41320C62B84165498F1419606360D2F