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 reading and the article are both about comparing online with printed encycliopedia.the author of the reading believes that the online encyclopedia has many disadvantages and problems so it should not be relied on. The lecturer casts doubts on the claims made in the article. she thinks that all these claims are made out of prejudice and ignorance towards the online encyclopedia and it benefits ad merits.
first of all, the author points out that online encyclopedia writers and contributors lack specific credentials and reliability.it is mentioned that contributors do not necessarily have academic backgrounds leading to unprecise pieces of information unlike the written encyclopedia .this point is challenged by the lecturer.she says that errors can be found in both written and online encyclopedia and this accusation is unfair because you can't find a comprehensive source of information with no mistakes. furthermore, she argues that correcting and tracking strategies can be implemented easier with an online encyclopedia than written words that should be reprinted on papers.
secondly, the author contends that the online encyclopedia can be manipulated and vandalized by hackers.the article notes that information can be corrupted and missed with and many changes can be made to the original texts.the lecturer rebuts this argument. she suggests that online encyclopedia is equipped with special editors to monitor and eliminate any manipulation or incorrect pieces of information.she elaborates on this by mentioning that most important and crucial information is in only read format that can not be changed and no dispute or editing for the information which protect the fidelity of it.
finally, the author states that online encyclopedia can concentrate on unimportant events and information .the article establishes that this focus can give false hints and impressions on what is crucial and what is not,the lecturer, on the other hand, posits that written encyclopedia on the contrary have a very limit space for information, that not all events are included and can be missed. she puts forth the idea that online encyclopedia let the people pick the pieces of information they want and get rid of what they are not interested in.it provides a wider range of choices regarding information picking.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 280, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
...ubts on the claims made in the article. she thinks that all these claims are made o...
^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: First
...opedia and it benefits ad merits. first of all, the author points out that onli...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 282, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ormation unlike the written encyclopedia .this point is challenged by the lecturer...
^^
Line 5, column 441, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...d this accusation is unfair because you cant find a comprehensive source of informat...
^^^^
Line 5, column 507, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Furthermore
...source of information with no mistakes. furthermore, she argues that correcting and trackin...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Secondly
...at should be reprinted on papers. secondly, the author contends that the online en...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 259, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
...exts.the lecturer rebuts this argument. she suggests that online encyclopedia is eq...
^^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Finally
...which protect the fidelity of it. finally, the author states that online encyclop...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 106, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...te on unimportant events and information .the article establishes that this focus ...
^^
Line 13, column 219, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , the
...sions on what is crucial and what is not,the lecturer, on the other hand, posits tha...
^^^^
Line 13, column 395, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: She
... events are included and can be missed. she puts forth the idea that online encyclo...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 22.0 7.30242825607 301% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 22.412803532 165% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 5.01324503311 279% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1975.0 1373.03311258 144% => OK
No of words: 361.0 270.72406181 133% => OK
Chars per words: 5.47091412742 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35889894354 4.04702891845 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12969868365 2.5805825403 121% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 145.348785872 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.515235457064 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 626.4 419.366225166 149% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 3.25607064018 307% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => 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: 40.0 21.2450331126 188% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 131.045463791 49.2860985944 266% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 219.444444444 110.228320801 199% => OK
Words per sentence: 40.1111111111 21.698381199 185% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.2222222222 7.06452816374 187% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 11.0 4.19205298013 262% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.274298629484 0.272083759551 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.128819218323 0.0996497079465 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0564848478713 0.0662205650399 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.186925889324 0.162205337803 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0287259918608 0.0443174109184 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 24.4 13.3589403974 183% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 22.42 53.8541721854 42% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 14.6 5.55761589404 263% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 20.1 11.0289183223 182% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.33 12.2367328918 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.78 8.42419426049 116% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 63.6247240618 149% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 10.7273730684 144% => OK
gunning_fog: 18.0 10.498013245 171% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.2008830022 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.