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 expertswho 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 an online 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 talks about the communal online encyclopedias. The author states that they are less important than the traditional printed ones. however, the professor has a counter opinion about it and says that it detractors ignore its advantages and refutes each reason presented by the writer, casting doubts in the author’s beliefs.
Firstly, the reading points out that the individuals who write articles for those platforms, do not possess the necessary expertise and academical credentials. Notwithstanding, the orator disproves this affirmation noticing that the traditional encyclopedias are error-free and, owing to the difficulty of correcting them, they are in the market for decades with those errors. On the other hand, the online version could be repaired readily and the corrected information is instantaneously available.
Secondly, the article argues that even if the text published is correct, unscrupulous hackers could access and changing it. The orator contradicts this idea by saying that there are different ways of facing this issue, like to use read-only formats that cannot be modified. In addition, those online cites count with expert editors which are dedicated to detect and fix this kind of problem.
Finally, the writer remarks that those platforms present articles about unimportant or banal topics, creating a state of opinion about what is relevant and what is not. however, the professor deftly points out the weakness of this point saying that, in the traditional encyclopedias, a group of specialists decide which topics are remarkable, and in uncountable occasions those subjects are not of the population’s interest. Contrarily, the online encyclopedias own an enormous number of articles which reflect the variety of people’s interest.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 142, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: However
...tant than the traditional printed ones. however, the professor has a counter opinion ab...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 170, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: However
...about what is relevant and what is not. however, the professor deftly points out the we...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 307, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...al encyclopedias, a group of specialists decide which topics are remarkable, and ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, in addition, kind of, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1535.0 1373.03311258 112% => OK
No of words: 270.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.68518518519 5.08290768461 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05360046442 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09821179452 2.5805825403 120% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.614814814815 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 470.7 419.366225166 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.5374489075 49.2860985944 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.916666667 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.25 7.06452816374 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.190545469335 0.272083759551 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0754178933096 0.0996497079465 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0634622856988 0.0662205650399 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110622669324 0.162205337803 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0251670054471 0.0443174109184 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 13.3589403974 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.02 12.2367328918 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.99 8.42419426049 119% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 63.6247240618 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 10.7273730684 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.