Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-06-01 08:19:04 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: F71E445C941A54B0A77A81B7C972B608C7CA443CD1680D1C775D0315D8C683C5
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 - F71E445C941A54B0A77A81B7C972B608C7CA443CD1680D1C775D0315D8C683C5
  • createdAtMillis - 1717229944938
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 1
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 1
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1796691956287807939F71E445C941A54B0A77A81B7C972B608C7CA443CD1680D1C775D0315D8C683C5