Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-18 01:44:01 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: C1F9571598ABE947B71C8CECCE6550AE91135FC29A98553EB72344527FA1BE7F
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 - C1F9571598ABE947B71C8CECCE6550AE91135FC29A98553EB72344527FA1BE7F
  • createdAtMillis - 1723945441079
  • 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 - 0
  • ratingsId - 1824837800879075678C1F9571598ABE947B71C8CECCE6550AE91135FC29A98553EB72344527FA1BE7F