Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-06-02 21:08:15 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 53D557F48B5F76F3317D92DAA0CFA3A269DCBA871B8E138F7CD66628410E3039
Participant Details

Original Note:

The claim by Honig repeated here that the possible grounds were not stated is false - the judge addressed them in February '24 and approved three and dismissed one. https://x.com/rgoodlaw/status/1797295137703211122/photo/3 https://x.com/rgoodlaw/status/1797295137703211122

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1797373468465385890
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 53D557F48B5F76F3317D92DAA0CFA3A269DCBA871B8E138F7CD66628410E3039
  • createdAtMillis - 1717362495999
  • 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 - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 179737346846538589053D557F48B5F76F3317D92DAA0CFA3A269DCBA871B8E138F7CD66628410E3039