Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-06-08 05:06:33 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 5C9BCD9E51D3FFA9FA27E06C1521CA34E6DADE2F21378B36CB1CCD4E26768613
Participant Details

Original Note:

The original post makes no objective claims, it merely highlights the possibility of the conviction being declared a mistrial due to a person claiming to be relative of one of the jurors. Furthermore the purposed note cites “evidence” and not proof, making it speculative.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1799216951710949553
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 5C9BCD9E51D3FFA9FA27E06C1521CA34E6DADE2F21378B36CB1CCD4E26768613
  • createdAtMillis - 1717823193558
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • 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 - 17992169517109495535C9BCD9E51D3FFA9FA27E06C1521CA34E6DADE2F21378B36CB1CCD4E26768613