Birdwatch Archive - Rating Details

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-03-01 13:05:27 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: A89361F6504DAC3755833B35CA4F85C5D66BB2A6D92B3CA7857472B9316E8562
Participant Details

Original Note:

Dieser Post ist irreführend. Das Urteil spricht Correctiv in 2/3 der Punkte recht zu, wobei der dritte Punkt nicht in direkten Zusammenhang mit den Kernpunkten des Artikels hängt. Es handelte sich um eine Nebenklage https://justiz.hamburg.de/gerichte/oberlandesgericht/gerichtspressestelle/unterlassungsantrag-gegen-correctiv-berichterstattung-nur-teilweise-erfolgreich--705854

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

noteId - 1763535282144424104
participantId -
raterParticipantId - A89361F6504DAC3755833B35CA4F85C5D66BB2A6D92B3CA7857472B9316E8562
createdAtMillis - 1709298327884
version - 2
agree - 0
disagree - 0
helpful - 0
notHelpful - 0
helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
helpfulOther - 0
helpfulInformative - 0
helpfulClear - 1
helpfulEmpathetic - 0
helpfulGoodSources - 1
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 - 1763535282144424104A89361F6504DAC3755833B35CA4F85C5D66BB2A6D92B3CA7857472B9316E8562