Birdwatch Archive - Rating Details

Birdwatch Note Rating

2023-12-20 00:20:56 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: A244CB096DF2F565549A1996ED21511F492CED99E53491EC455C6E4258CC12E4
Participant Details

Original Note:

Si ce texte n'avait pas besoin des votes du RN pour passer (sans leurs votes, il serait passé à 261 votes Pour contre 186 votes Contre) il fallait néanmoins que le RN ne s'y oppose pas Si le RN avait voté contre ce texte, il aurait été rejeté à 274 voix Contre contre 261 Pour https://www2.assemblee-nationale.fr/scrutins/detail/(legislature)/16/(num)/3213

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

noteId - 1737243926447132719
participantId -
raterParticipantId - A244CB096DF2F565549A1996ED21511F492CED99E53491EC455C6E4258CC12E4
createdAtMillis - 1703031656451
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 - 0
notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
ratingsId - 1737243926447132719A244CB096DF2F565549A1996ED21511F492CED99E53491EC455C6E4258CC12E4