Some people believe that it is good to share as much information as possible in scientific research, business and the academic world. Others believe that some information is too valuable to be shared freely.
In today's world, data is considered as one of the most valuable resources. People are starting to understand that knowledge is indeed more valuable than the traditional treasures of the world. The given topic illustrates the juxtaposition between the kind of people who think all the information available in several communities should be shared and the type of people who think that some information is simply too valuable to be shared and must be kept a secret. Personally, I do understand both sides of the argument, but I side with the latter.
First, let's look at why it is so important to share important research information to the public. Human beings are social creatures and have been since their inception. People are dependent on each other for various necessities. The entire world, for instance depends on farmers for food, and farmers too, rely on others for essentials like clothing and shelter. This is a proof that no human being can survive alone. Similarly, all the inventions, significant or otherwise, were dependent on discoveries and creations of other. Someone had to figure out that stones can be carved and reshaped so that someone else could invent the wheel. Before a rocket could be created, numerous discoveries like alloys, internal combustion, the physics of gravity had to take place. So, arguably, anything made in todays' world no matter how simple or convolutional, is only possible because someone else, shared the information available before. Can you imagine if Graham Bell had decided to keep the telephone for himself? The internet probably wouldn't exist today!
With that said, there is some information that is indeed too valuable to shared. The "value" here is, perhaps, not monetary. Some information, if grasped by a wrong person with malevolent intentions, can be deleterious. A simple example is the procedure to make an atom bomb. This information, obviously, cannot be made public. It need not even be something as dangerous as an atom bomb, to be too valuable to share. For example, a company called OpenAI, specialising in building products exhibiting artificial intelligence, built a tool that could write paragraphs of text based on just one line of input. To the untrained eye, the text was indistinguishable from human written essays. As the name suggests, one of the principles of OpenAI, is that it shares all the information it has, so that the general public can become aware of all the wonders artificial intelligence has to offer. However, it refrained from sharing the source code for this particular product. The reason simply being that it could be used as a tool to create and spread fake news, easily and quickly. So, yes, the value of some kind of information could be too much to be shared with the public.
If it isn't clear already, I am personally the advocate of sharing as much information as possible while keeping some that could have dangerous impacts, private. For reasons illustrated before, it is crucial that most information be shared to whoever desires it. However, the positive impacts of sharing some data isn't enough to justify the negative repercussions it may have, if fallen into malevolent hands.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1034, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...hone for himself? The internet probably wouldnt exist today! With that said, there...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 811, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...all the information it has, so that the general public can become aware of all the wonders art...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 7, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
... be shared with the public. If it isnt clear already, I am personally the advo...
^^^^
Line 13, column 314, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...e positive impacts of sharing some data isnt enough to justify the negative repercus...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, look, may, similarly, so, while, as to, for example, for instance, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 13.1623246493 251% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 7.85571142285 204% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 7.30460921844 205% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 32.0 24.0651302605 133% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 41.998997996 140% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 8.3376753507 216% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2685.0 1615.20841683 166% => OK
No of words: 526.0 315.596192385 167% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10456273764 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78901763229 4.20363070211 114% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89302206853 2.80592935109 103% => OK
Unique words: 282.0 176.041082164 160% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.536121673004 0.561755894193 95% => OK
syllable_count: 854.1 506.74238477 169% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 11.0 2.52805611222 435% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 6.0 2.10420841683 285% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 16.0721442886 180% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.5885808266 49.4020404114 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.5862068966 106.682146367 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1379310345 20.7667163134 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.41379310345 7.06120827912 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.01903807615 80% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.67935871743 173% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 3.4128256513 205% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.358865485693 0.244688304435 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0863247781714 0.084324248473 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0854419753573 0.0667982634062 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.23437457131 0.151304729494 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0463098608678 0.056905535591 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.0946893788 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 50.2224549098 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.0 12.4159519038 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.58950901804 99% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 78.4519038076 168% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.