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 passage discusses how the use of communal online encyclopedias have multiple drawbacks that make them less valuable than traditional ones. The speaker, on the other hand, asserts that it is true that online encyclopedias are not perfect, but they offer a lot of benefits to people.
First, even though online encyclopedias typically contain errors, traditional ones never close to perfect as well. This is because there is no source in the world is correct one hundred percent. Moreover, with printed editions writers cannot go back and rewrite again, so inaccurate information or typos will always be there. This fact shows that even the traditional encyclopedias which are written by trained experts could have mistakes.
Second, it is true that online encyclopedias could be hacked or vandalized easily, but writers nowadays protect their articles by making them under the reading format, so no one can add or fabricate information. Furthermore, they started hiring editors to monitor any changes. This indicates that the original text of online encyclopedia cannot be edited as a traditional encyclopedia.
Finally, although traditional encyclopedias focus on the most important topics, they do not actually reflect the public view. Online encyclopedias, in contrast, contain countless number of different topics, which effectively reflect the diversity of community; and this is one of the strongest advantages of online encyclopedias, which make them worthy and valuable as the traditional ones.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, furthermore, if, moreover, second, so, well, in contrast, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 18.0 30.3222958057 59% => More preposition wanted.
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: 1303.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 230.0 270.72406181 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.6652173913 5.08290768461 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.89432290496 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02828817991 2.5805825403 117% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.617391304348 0.540411800872 114% => OK
syllable_count: 409.5 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.23620309051 24% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.327747351 49.2860985944 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.454545455 110.228320801 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9090909091 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.7272727273 7.06452816374 152% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
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: 0.32295792971 0.272083759551 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.122227771233 0.0996497079465 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0667539055804 0.0662205650399 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.202463340041 0.162205337803 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0316821750424 0.0443174109184 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 13.3589403974 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.26 53.8541721854 64% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.5 11.0289183223 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.61 12.2367328918 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.3 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.2008830022 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.