Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-01-20 05:07:23 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: D0D99BB9BD53BD2C233A049F7E0446FF1B55A6CB2A269BB469A8B9A0098BE026
Participant Details

Original Note:

No note needed for this post. It is a genuine topic of political discourse as to whether the way judges (judicial branch) and public servants (employees in the executive branch) have interpreted the Treaty of Waitangi, including in how the Waitangi Tribunal approaches claims.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1748209009566568632
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - D0D99BB9BD53BD2C233A049F7E0446FF1B55A6CB2A269BB469A8B9A0098BE026
  • createdAtMillis - 1705727243685
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 1
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1748209009566568632D0D99BB9BD53BD2C233A049F7E0446FF1B55A6CB2A269BB469A8B9A0098BE026