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.
Both the article and the lecture talk about online encyclopedias and compare that to traditional encyclopedias. The reading avers that online encyclopedias have many problems such as inaccurate entries, hackers can change data, and do not have prioritiies in their entries. The speaker, on the other hand, believes that those critics are biased and because of some missunderstanding.
First, the article asserts that communal encyclopedias which can be editted by general people who are not academicaly eligiable makes a lot of mistake in those online encyclopedias rather than traditional. Conversely, the lecturer challenges this opinion by stating that printed encyclopedias, like the online one, have not been perfect and they never be close to be accurate. Although, in online encyclpedia those mistake can be corrected easily which it is not possible in traditional one for at least a decade till the next edition.
Second, the author claims although the original entries in online encyclopedia are correct, the chance of erasing or missediting by hackers is a very risk of vandalism. However, the crucial materials will be protected by different strategies in online encyclopedia, the professor says. He adds that read only format is one of these protocols which do not allow any malecious people to change vital data.
Third, the passage points out that in online encyclopedia there is not a well-focus on the priority of the entries, which makes people to spend time and attention to superfacial issues. On the other hand, the speaker posits that if the traditional encyclopedia chose some of the topics to cover relates to the limit of space. Space is not an issue in online encyclopedia, then they cover all topics which people are intersted and this diversity of topic coverage is one the most interesting advantages of these communal encyclopedia.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nd because of some missunderstanding. First, the article asserts that communal...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 140, Rule ID: A_LOT_OF_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun mistake seems to be countable; consider using: 'a lot of mistakes'.
Suggestion: a lot of mistakes
...who are not academicaly eligiable makes a lot of mistake in those online encyclopedias rather th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 352, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[5]
Message: The adverb 'never' is usually put after the verb 'be'.
Suggestion: be never
...ine one, have not been perfect and they never be close to be accurate. Although, in onli...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...least a decade till the next edition. Second, the author claims although the o...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...alecious people to change vital data. Third, the passage points out that in on...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 273, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...t if the traditional encyclopedia chose some of the topics to cover relates to the limit of...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, first, however, if, second, so, then, third, well, at least, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
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: 1567.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 297.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27609427609 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15134772569 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0376715501 2.5805825403 118% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 145.348785872 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.56228956229 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 517.5 419.366225166 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.9112403522 49.2860985944 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.583333333 110.228320801 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.75 21.698381199 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.25 7.06452816374 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.376945611458 0.272083759551 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.140180331898 0.0996497079465 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0729337500602 0.0662205650399 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.230048192365 0.162205337803 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0386353587126 0.0443174109184 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 13.3589403974 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 53.8541721854 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.64 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.92 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 10.7273730684 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.