Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2025-01-05 17:59:31 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 0F995A953D26D16ACB94131672F2BD864B6126D0B1D5EE51FE69D003B03AF6B4
Participant Details

Original Note:

The appeal judgment can be read here. The image/article is not an accurate reflection of what it says and why the sentence was given. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/r-v-ul-nasir-judgment.pdf

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1875705786552201605
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 0F995A953D26D16ACB94131672F2BD864B6126D0B1D5EE51FE69D003B03AF6B4
  • createdAtMillis - 1736099971073
  • 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 - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 18757057865522016050F995A953D26D16ACB94131672F2BD864B6126D0B1D5EE51FE69D003B03AF6B4