Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-03-13 22:44:25 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 0F676A639F86D6427380643792A319A4F90A52F629A52A0607FB06C2DC878027
Participant Details

Original Note:

The ruling was about whether or not the phrase “a woman” was a generalization in the ruling or not. The court uses the word woman 27 times in the decision. Thea insinuation that the court was saying the judge should have used "person with a vagina" instead is fabricated. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2024/2024scc7/2024scc7.html

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1767950149018603570
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 0F676A639F86D6427380643792A319A4F90A52F629A52A0607FB06C2DC878027
  • createdAtMillis - 1710369865553
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 17679501490186035700F676A639F86D6427380643792A319A4F90A52F629A52A0607FB06C2DC878027