Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-08-17 21:06:47 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: E9DF32008AA7C67A1D29CDB022DF20FAFC9DAC2884E6A073071FA86B03C110CF
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 - E9DF32008AA7C67A1D29CDB022DF20FAFC9DAC2884E6A073071FA86B03C110CF
  • createdAtMillis - 1723928807649
  • 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 - 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 - 1824837800879075678E9DF32008AA7C67A1D29CDB022DF20FAFC9DAC2884E6A073071FA86B03C110CF