Communal online encyclopedias represent one of the latest resources to be found on the Internet. They are in many respects like traditional printed encyclopedias collections of articles on various subjects. What is specific to these online encyclopedias, however, is that any Internet user can contribute a new article or make an editorial change in an existing one. As a result, the encyclopedia is authored by the whole community of Internet users. The idea might sound attractive, but the communal online encyclopedias have several important problems that make them much less valuable than traditional, printed encyclopedias.
First, contributors to a communal online encyclopedia often lack academic credentials, thereby making their contributions partially informed at best and downright inaccurate in many cases. Traditional encyclopedias are written by trained experts who adhere to standards of academic rigor that nonspecialists cannot really achieve.
Second, even if the original entry in the online encyclopedia 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 encyclopedias 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 anonline encyclopedia as, say, a single long-running television program. The traditional encyclopedia provides a considered view of what topics to include or exclude and contains a sense of proportion that online "democratic" communal encyclopedias do not.
The article states that communal online encyclopedias have a large scope of problems that make them much less valuable than the traditional printed ones and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that online encyclopedias have to play a small price for being communal and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading states that contributors to a communal online encyclopedia might not have the mandatory academic credentials, creating a lot of inaccurate articles. The professor opposes this point by saying that even the traditional encyclopedias have never been close to a perfect accuracy. She explains that is impossible to find a perfect material on both online and offline sources. Also, the professor states that errors could be worse in printed materials, because they need to be revised for new editions and this could take decades to happen.
Second, the article claims that the communal system facilitates unscrupulous uses to corrupt and edit information in the encyclopedia. However, the professor contends that they have ways to protect the content from malicious users. She explains that the main information about a topic uses a format that no one can change, in that way, the core of the article will be protect from changes. Another method that online encyclopedias use is to hire special editors to moderate all the changes that have been made and seek for fake or corrupted ones.
Third, the reading avers that online encyclopedias focus too much on trivial and popular topics, creating a false impression that these subjects are more important. Conversely, the lecture refutes this point by stating that as the offline encyclopedias have a limited space they do not reflect all the necessary range of subjects. She explains that academic articles are also represented on online encyclopedias. Moreover, the other topics reflect the diversity of users' views, as a result online content have strong advantages when compared with offline archive.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, first, however, moreover, second, so, third, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 12.0772626932 157% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1697.0 1373.03311258 124% => OK
No of words: 318.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33647798742 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80645006009 2.5805825403 109% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550314465409 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 541.8 419.366225166 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.9364885941 49.2860985944 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.214285714 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7142857143 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.64285714286 7.06452816374 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.299985380638 0.272083759551 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.107560908288 0.0996497079465 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0537234090773 0.0662205650399 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.19454049187 0.162205337803 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0430264146862 0.0443174109184 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.3589403974 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.99 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 63.6247240618 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 10.7273730684 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => 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.