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 Internetuser 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 onlineencyclopedia 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 toinclude or exclude and contains a sense of proportion that online “democratic” communal encyclopedias do not.
Summarize the point made in lecture, being sure how they oppose specific points made in the reading passage.
In lecture, teaher believes that online encuclopedia are better than traditional encyclopedia.
First, errors are made in all written materials. While errors in online encyclopedia can be corrected, errors in printed encyclopedia remains for decades. Trained experts makes less errors than common people, but traditional encyclopedia once written can not be changed, errors remains in traditional encyclopedia while online encyclopedia can be corrected.
Second, online encyclopedia community has realised that informatiom can be corrupted by hackers and unscruplous users. Measures have been taken to prevent information in these encyclopedia. Articles can now be written in Read Only Format. Articles written in these format can only be read, they can not be edited. Furthermore, special editors edits if they found any malicious content.
Third, there is limited space in traditonal encyclopedias but space is not an issue in online encylopedia. Because of availabilty of space, oniline encyclopedia covers a wide range of topics. Traditional encyclopedia covers only important topics. Online encyclodia offers a diversity of options from which a person can read. Diversity of topics and information on almost everything is the strongest advantage of traditional encyclopedia.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 178, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun errors is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...ains for decades. Trained experts makes less errors than common people, but traditio...
^^^^
Line 5, column 171, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this encyclopedia' or 'these encyclopedias'?
Suggestion: this encyclopedia; these encyclopedias
...ve been taken to prevent information in these encyclopedia. Articles can now be written in Read On...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, if, second, so, third, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 12.0772626932 25% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 6.0 22.412803532 27% => OK
Preposition: 20.0 30.3222958057 66% => 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: 1100.0 1373.03311258 80% => OK
No of words: 186.0 270.72406181 69% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.91397849462 5.08290768461 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.69299088775 4.04702891845 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21926307682 2.5805825403 125% => OK
Unique words: 111.0 145.348785872 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.596774193548 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 364.5 419.366225166 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.0 1.55342163355 129% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 0.0 8.23620309051 0% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.1298131789 49.2860985944 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 78.5714285714 110.228320801 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 13.2857142857 21.698381199 61% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.78571428571 7.06452816374 54% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.311045200176 0.272083759551 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.117024493121 0.0996497079465 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0608908539614 0.0662205650399 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.197804134302 0.162205337803 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0165716125883 0.0443174109184 37% => 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: 24.44 53.8541721854 45% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.11 12.2367328918 132% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.63 8.42419426049 114% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.