Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-09-25 08:26:40 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: D228151B83E292C131315A17C056C8D579F388D6760B7DCE98893DC5D35FA26D
Participant Details

Original Note:

while he was not proven to be innocent, it’s also important to note the main reason his case got media storm attention was due to new evidence suggesting he was not at the crime, along with confirmation the evidence was tampered with and was not allowed the investigation.

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1838819493201444868
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - D228151B83E292C131315A17C056C8D579F388D6760B7DCE98893DC5D35FA26D
  • createdAtMillis - 1727252800206
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • 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 - 1838819493201444868D228151B83E292C131315A17C056C8D579F388D6760B7DCE98893DC5D35FA26D