Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-03-14 04:10:22 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: EC052DE1D6C39686B168EEB0DBB82A31449376DA821B0DB4563E038215964AFA
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 - EC052DE1D6C39686B168EEB0DBB82A31449376DA821B0DB4563E038215964AFA
  • createdAtMillis - 1710389422660
  • 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 - 1
  • 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 - 1767950149018603570EC052DE1D6C39686B168EEB0DBB82A31449376DA821B0DB4563E038215964AFA