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 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 reading states that Online encylopedia have several problems rather than Traditional format and
provides three reasons of support. However, the lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. He explains that none of the author's reasons are convincing and rebuts each of the author's claims.
First of all, the reading of the author states that communal online encyclopedia's contributors have a lack of knowledge, thus it might happen that they contribute partially informed and downright inaccurate in many ways whereas trained experts are wriiten Traditional enccyclipedia and they have a standard academic background. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He says that it might have happened in every format not only online also in Traditional format. In addition, the lecturer posits that it would not possible to made any encyclopedia without any mistakes, hence
it is easy to edit online formate more precious way.
Secondly, The reading asserts that it would happen to opportunity for unscrupulous users or hackers to fabricated or eradicated and also corrupt information in the encyclopedia since it provides communal entry for everyone, on the other hand, it would not possible in Traditional form. The lecturer, however, refutes this claim that two strategic ways to prevent this problem easily, one is that to disputed a format of the writing that's why it could not possible to change. Moreover, the lecturer posits that special editor always active to detect and changes the information those actually not to bring any values but this flaws changes needed decade in Traditional formate, thus the online encyclopedia is better than Traditional format.
Finally, the reading posits that the Communal encyclopedia focused lots of irrelevant topics and create a false impression of what actually worthy and what is not but in the Traditional encyclopedia reasonable view of what topics include or exclude. In contrast, the lecturer says that Traditional form has some limitation of spaces that's why they are concern about their include or exclude matter and as a result, they actually provide specific subject matter and create some interest in specific groups. On the other hand, the lecturer states that online formate has not any dilemma about the spaces, thus they diversify and included various subject matters and various groups are interested and continue their reading easily and keep to learn lots of things.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Provides
...ms rather than Traditional format and provides three reasons of support. However, the ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: It
...yclopedia without any mistakes, hence it is easy to edit online formate more pre...
^^
Line 9, column 433, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
...hat to disputed a format of the writing thats why it could not possible to change. Mo...
^^^^^
Line 13, column 334, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
...onal form has some limitation of spaces thats why they are concern about their includ...
^^^^^
Line 13, column 733, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'keep learning'.
Suggestion: keep learning
...d and continue their reading easily and keep to learn lots of things.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, thus, whereas, in addition, in contrast, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 7.30242825607 274% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 22.412803532 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2077.0 1373.03311258 151% => OK
No of words: 386.0 270.72406181 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.38082901554 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43248042346 4.04702891845 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73145589348 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 145.348785872 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.489637305699 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 657.0 419.366225166 157% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 21.2450331126 137% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 88.1855896666 49.2860985944 179% => OK
Chars per sentence: 159.769230769 110.228320801 145% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.6923076923 21.698381199 137% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.3846153846 7.06452816374 189% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.09492273731 147% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => 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: 0.223532963648 0.272083759551 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0768000871245 0.0996497079465 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.050897026672 0.0662205650399 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10762949086 0.162205337803 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0634316661776 0.0443174109184 143% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.8 13.3589403974 141% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.58 53.8541721854 62% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 11.0289183223 143% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.52 12.2367328918 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.37 8.42419426049 111% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 63.6247240618 165% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.498013245 130% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.