Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-18 07:16:12 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 4A495E2B9376ACED058372858A3AB548BDBB2E34CF516981DA07A4BDB598A67C
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN. The post does not claim the pardon was proof of innocence. There is plenty of evidence towards his innocence and consensus among historians to support the post’s assertion. The case for Frank’s guilt can be argued outside of CN.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1824837800879075678
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 4A495E2B9376ACED058372858A3AB548BDBB2E34CF516981DA07A4BDB598A67C
  • createdAtMillis - 1723965372352
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • 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 - 18248378008790756784A495E2B9376ACED058372858A3AB548BDBB2E34CF516981DA07A4BDB598A67C