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 states that communal online encyclopedias are less valuable than traditional ones due to several problems and provides three reasons for support. However, the professor explains that the arguments in the reading passage are not convincing and refute the author's reasons.
First, the reading claims that some contributors to online encyclopedias are not expert and lack academic credentials which making their contributions are not fully correct. The professor refutes this point by saying that the traditional encyclopedias written by experts are also not close to perfect. He states that editors can easily correct the contents in <span style="font-size: 19.36px;">online encyclopedias</span>.
Second, the article posits that vandals and hackers can delete and corrupt information in online encyclopedias. However, the professor says that online encyclopedias' content can be protected by converting the format to a read-only format that cannot be changed. According to the professor, especial editors can eliminate changing in online encyclopedias.
Third, the reading says that online encyclopedias usually create a false impression of what is crucial and what is not. The professor posits this point by explaining that online encyclopedias have a great variety of subjects and the topics diversity is the strongest advantage of online encyclopedias.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 234, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'topics'' or 'topic's'?
Suggestion: topics'; topic's
...ave a great variety of subjects and the topics diversity is the strongest advantage of...
^^^^^^
Line 13, column 303, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...gest advantage of online encyclopedias.
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, second, so, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 16.0 30.3222958057 53% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1201.0 1373.03311258 87% => OK
No of words: 199.0 270.72406181 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.0351758794 5.08290768461 119% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.75589349951 4.04702891845 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.57123484812 2.5805825403 138% => OK
Unique words: 111.0 145.348785872 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.557788944724 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 364.5 419.366225166 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => 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: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 26.6722702446 49.2860985944 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 120.1 110.228320801 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.4 7.06452816374 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.291414571959 0.272083759551 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.120395101031 0.0996497079465 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0568510916439 0.0662205650399 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.185033281541 0.162205337803 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0334014165159 0.0443174109184 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 13.3589403974 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 53.8541721854 65% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.75 12.2367328918 145% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.66 8.42419426049 115% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.