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 reading and listening discuss whether communal online encyclopedias are beneficial or not over traditional printed one. The former reprsents three disadvantages of it, but the later contradicts each of these points.
First of all, the author of the passage claims that communal online encyclopedia lacks authenticity as it is written by nonspecialists and might provide less valid information than printed encyclopedia. However, the listening contends that online encyclopedia can able to correct mistakes better than traditional one. As it has the opportunity to know the people's feedback and on the basis of that they provide more accurate information but traditional encyclopedia contains wrong information decade after decade due to hardship of changing it.
Secondly, the passage asserts that in the online version there is a higher chance of manipulating information in the encyclopedia by hackers, vandals, and other unauthentic users. In contrast, the lecture counters that online encyclopedia can prevent manipulation by taking different strategies such as, adopting measures so that no one can make unreliable changes. In addition, they have experts whose tasks are to check the change of the online version of it.
In third, the reading article states that online communal encyclopedia often focuses more on some issues that are not so important and create a wrong impressions on people especially, youg people. On the other hand, the lectures mentions that in the online version more space is available than tradional printed version and can focus on diverse interest of many people. Online encyclopedia not only include relevant, popular, and important documents but also diverse topics for different people.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 357, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
.... As it has the opportunity to know the peoples feedback and on the basis of that they ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... change of the online version of it. In third, the reading article states that ...
^^
Line 7, column 42, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n third, the reading article states that online communal encyclopedia often focus...
^^
Line 7, column 152, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'impression'?
Suggestion: impression
...are not so important and create a wrong impressions on people especially, youg people. On t...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, in addition, in contrast, such as, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1473.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 263.0 270.72406181 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.60076045627 5.08290768461 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02706775958 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99108343504 2.5805825403 116% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.566539923954 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 472.5 419.366225166 113% => 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: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.2242594507 49.2860985944 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.909090909 110.228320801 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9090909091 21.698381199 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.0 7.06452816374 170% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.342588187974 0.272083759551 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.138730982899 0.0996497079465 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0690049123546 0.0662205650399 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.214242633717 0.162205337803 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0318623119358 0.0443174109184 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.9 13.3589403974 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 53.8541721854 58% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.0289183223 132% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.5 12.2367328918 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.22 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.