Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-31 23:57:01 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: EF80341291E320B6F0F21E6B114261277A8DC21A489A4BF6990899C69E71A2A1
Participant Details

Original Note:

The verdict in the Trump case was not based on any specific case law but rather on the fact the judge had not given correct US constitutional interpretation and instructions

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1796691956287807939
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - EF80341291E320B6F0F21E6B114261277A8DC21A489A4BF6990899C69E71A2A1
  • createdAtMillis - 1717199821864
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1796691956287807939EF80341291E320B6F0F21E6B114261277A8DC21A489A4BF6990899C69E71A2A1