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 and the lecture are both about Communal online encyclopedias. The article postulates the disadvantages of these encyclopedias whereas the lecture challenges these points by saying its advantages.
To begin with, the article states that the information available in online encyclopedias lacks credibility and they itself have a lot of errors. In addition, traditional encyclopedias are written by trained experts. Therefore, they are credible. The professor challenges all the claims made by the professor. He argues that traditional encyclopedias are not perfect as they cannot be changed or added according to recent advances. He adds that online encyclopedias are easy to correct.
Secondly, the article suggests, online encyclopedias are easy for hackers or vandals to fabricate, delete, and corrupt information. The professor opposes this by saying that, in order to prevent online information from hacking, 2 strategies are implemented. Firstly, the crucial facts in the article can change only by the authors. Secondly, they should recruit special editors to eliminate the molesting of the article.
Finally, the article tells that the communal encyclopedia provide a lot of information that the web user may tier to look to a comprehension of what information they need. The article also points out that adequate information with concise comprehension can be easily found in a traditional encyclopedia. This specific claim is challenged by the professor by stating that, a traditional one has a limited amount of space and can add only the main points about the topics. They cannot add any new information or articles relating to them. Furthermore, if the information typed in the traditional encyclopedia can never be erased if it may be proved later as wrong information. The professor put forth the statement that, diversity of the topic is the strong advantage of an online encyclopedia. Indeed, space is not a matter to them and they can add or delete any information with the current advances. Online media have a greater variety of articles for further readings.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 266, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
..., 2 strategies are implemented. Firstly, the crucial facts in the article can cha...
^^
Line 4, column 653, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[3]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...ver be erased if it may be proved later as wrong information. The professor put fo...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, whereas, in addition, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1765.0 1373.03311258 129% => OK
No of words: 327.0 270.72406181 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.39755351682 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25242769721 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16854696788 2.5805825403 123% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504587155963 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 571.5 419.366225166 136% => 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: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 13.0662251656 153% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.8127234293 49.2860985944 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.25 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.35 21.698381199 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.35 7.06452816374 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.350901502516 0.272083759551 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110825659247 0.0996497079465 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0645722562013 0.0662205650399 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.223590719097 0.162205337803 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0579548564739 0.0443174109184 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.74 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 63.6247240618 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.