Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-02-02 05:26:53 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 3CD0F927C651D4434AAD3113EB0692264F82007ED7A243014BEF271C18D5693C
Participant Details

Original Note:

The article quotes the attorney “The most significant aspect of this case, in my opinion, is that even though there was a Public Health Order in place, the Tribunal found the employer responsible anyway.” The proposed note states the opposite and is wrong. NNN. https://t.co/mrZrGDjZzm

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1752523888678900162
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 3CD0F927C651D4434AAD3113EB0692264F82007ED7A243014BEF271C18D5693C
  • createdAtMillis - 1706851613737
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 17525238886789001623CD0F927C651D4434AAD3113EB0692264F82007ED7A243014BEF271C18D5693C