Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-04-18 07:28:05 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: C4F1FA23353BC1A382761091D5BFA4A96ED1E50E9624C28420E33D532C16BC65
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN as the post expresses an opinion, but also the proposed note misses the key point made. The judgement in the Lehrmann case is made only on the evidence put forward by the parties to it and accepted into evidence, subject to any conditions requested and accepted.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1780813291683725382
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - C4F1FA23353BC1A382761091D5BFA4A96ED1E50E9624C28420E33D532C16BC65
  • createdAtMillis - 1713425285315
  • 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 - 1780813291683725382C4F1FA23353BC1A382761091D5BFA4A96ED1E50E9624C28420E33D532C16BC65