Advantages and disadvantages of Online Communal Encyclopedias
The reading and the lecture are both about communal online encyclopaedias. The author of the reading believes that there are three distinct disadvantages of online encyclopaedias. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. He is of the opinion that these criticisms arise as a result of negligence towards how far the internet has come in achieving this success.
To begin with, the author says that the users who write in online encyclopaedias lack better education and academic credentials. Thus, this leads to ill-informed contributions and more errors in the encyclopaedia. The lecturer argues this specific argument my mentioning that none of the printed material provides completely accurate information. In fact, traditional encyclopaedias are also prone to many mistakes in them. The lecturer also points out that it is relatively much easier to correct the faults and mistakes in an online encyclopaedia than it is in the printed form. As a result, the reader can get factually correct information.
Secondly, the author mentions that some malicious hackers or vandals can replace, remove or change the original correct content as anyone is allowed to do so. And by doing this, an innocent reader might be unaware and treat the tampered information as correct. The lecturer, however, rebuts this point by explaining that nowadays websites are taking great measures to get protection from such hacker activities. First, they have made the essential information in the encyclopedism read-only, a format which will prohibit users from altering the content in that section. And moreover, websites have arranged for special editors who continuously monitor and eliminate such malicious activities from happening.
Finally, the it is stated in the article that the online encyclopaedia may focus more on trivial topics rather that significant ones. This will make the reader ill-informed and negatively affect his knowledge of that particular area. But, the lecturer is of the position that traditional materials are often limited by the space they can use for conveying the appropriate information. And the judgement of what to include and what not to include, will obviously be devoid of the consideration of diversity of interests of the reader. In contrast, there is no limitation of space for online journals. And this space can be utilised to deliver many articles and content which will in turn try to satisfy all the diversified needs of different readers. Also, according to his opinion this delivery of such different materials to suit the needs of each individual user is by far the most significant advantages of online encyclopaedias.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 181, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...disadvantages of online encyclopaedias. The lecturer challenges the claims made by ...
^^^
Line 7, column 10, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'it'?
Suggestion: the; it
... activities from happening. Finally, the it is stated in the article that the onlin...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, thus, in contrast, in fact, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 30.3222958057 175% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 5.01324503311 279% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2256.0 1373.03311258 164% => OK
No of words: 420.0 270.72406181 155% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.37142857143 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52701905584 4.04702891845 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05011058868 2.5805825403 118% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 145.348785872 155% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535714285714 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 722.7 419.366225166 172% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 13.0662251656 168% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.6530528195 49.2860985944 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.545454545 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0909090909 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.40909090909 7.06452816374 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 4.33554083885 254% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.119095039653 0.272083759551 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0363325330297 0.0996497079465 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0619711745484 0.0662205650399 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0751252835113 0.162205337803 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0607440770007 0.0443174109184 137% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 53.8541721854 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.28 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 63.6247240618 196% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 Out of 30
---------------------
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.