Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-10-11 09:07:58 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: D732249A12306E3C937C7C30F0D8F7381A1E6BA0E8CA9A975E6F2CA49F6DDC43
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN, if you actually read the document you can see the judge clearly state the frame is not why they were sentenced, the risk to the painting itself was. even making the embarrassing argument that "neither of you could be sure that the screen would actually protect the painting"

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1840625930462454253
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - D732249A12306E3C937C7C30F0D8F7381A1E6BA0E8CA9A975E6F2CA49F6DDC43
  • createdAtMillis - 1728637678513
  • 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 - 0
  • 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 - 1840625930462454253D732249A12306E3C937C7C30F0D8F7381A1E6BA0E8CA9A975E6F2CA49F6DDC43