Communal online encyclopaedias represent one of the latest resources to be found on the Internet. They are in many respects like traditional printed encyclopaedias collections of articles on various subjects. What is specific to these online encyclopaedias, however, is that any Internet user can contribute a new article or make an editorial change in an existing one. As a result, the encyclopaedia is authored by the whole community of Internet users. The idea might sound attractive, but the communal online encyclopaedias have several important problems that make them much less valuable than traditional, printed encyclopaedias.
First, contributors to a communal online encyclopaedias often lack academic credentials, thereby making their contributions partially informed at best and downright inaccurate in many cases. Traditional encyclopaedias are written by trained experts who adhere to standards of academic rigor that no specialists cannot really achieve.
Second, even if the original entry in the online encyclopaedia is correct, the communal nature of these online encyclopedias gives unscrupulous users and vandals or hackers the opportunity to fabricate, delete, and corrupt information in the encyclopedia. Once changes have been made to the original text, an unsuspecting user cannot tell the entry has been tampered with. None of this is possible with a traditional encyclopedia.
Third, the communal encyclopaedias focus too frequently, and in too great a depth, on trivial and popular topics, which creates a false impression of what is important and what is not. A child doing research for a school project may discover that a major historical event receives as much attention in an online encyclopaedia as, say, a single long-running television program. The traditional encyclopaedia provides a considered view of what topics to include or exclude and contains a sense of proportion that online "democratic" communal encyclopaedias do not.
The reading article and the speaker both talk about the online and offline communal encyclopaedias. The passage centralises around the idea that online resources are not trustable than the written format. Opposite, the speaker disagrees with the idea and claims the best source rather than traditional sources. Some of the points are mentioned below.
Firstly, a passage avers the information that online data lacks academic credentials and sometimes provides partial information. Moreover, handwritten is more reliable and accurate. On the other hand, the narrator rejects the idea and points out that the online sources are less prone to errors, whereas the ancient written cannot be corrected if noted down once.
Secondly, the paragraph posits that the online material is inclined to be hacked and the details can be altered by anyone. Furthermore, the information can be corrupted and be misused, whereas it is not possible in offline materials. However, the speaker contradicts with the facts and supports that online sources provide the protection from being hacked and copied, as the data is only in a readable format. Also, data editors are employed in order to track any sort of mishandling of the informative material.
Lastly, the reading essay conveys that in orthodox sources, the material was entered after a lot of focus on the content. Adding more, online sources focus on one source. On the other side, the narrator tells that the information in the ancient hard copy materials has limited space, unlikely, the online information has no boundary, with the diversified users.
On winding up, it can be inferred that both article and the speaker pivot the merits and demerits points about the online and offline sources of data storage, with the specific illustrations.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 312, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: Some
...source rather than traditional sources. Some of the points are mentioned below. Firstly,...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, lastly, moreover, second, secondly, so, whereas, sort of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 22.412803532 45% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1515.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 285.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31578947368 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68838340932 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.536842105263 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 477.9 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.8876462845 49.2860985944 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.0 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.2 7.06452816374 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.156854228528 0.272083759551 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0550933542077 0.0996497079465 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0425692149569 0.0662205650399 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0919645820561 0.162205337803 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0189185312081 0.0443174109184 43% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 13.3589403974 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 53.8541721854 81% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.34 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 63.6247240618 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.