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 passage compares communal online and traditional printed encyclopedias. In this comparison the passage states that the online encyclopedias may sound attractive but they are much less valuable as compared to traditional printed encyclopedias by introducing three problems in them. However, the lecturer rebuts all of the arguments presented in the passage by highlighting some improvements in the way online encyclopedias are handled in recent times.
Firstly, that passage states that the people who edit or create online encyclopedias are not qualified enough to contribute, therefore most of the content is inaccurate to certain extent. On the other hand, the professor suggests that even traditional encyclopedias were never completely free of errors, hence many printing errors that remain in the printed versions for decades make them their content less accurate as compared to the online versions which are editable over times.
Furthermore, the passage suggests that due to increased number of hackers, after certain time the content of online encyclopedias is compromised due to fabrication and corruption in data. The professor does not agree with this thought and further explain that recently many strategies are introduced to tackle this issue by appointing editors who monitor the changes made by the internet users. Also, a format has been implemented in writing that no one can change to tackle such malpractices.
Lastly, the passage presents a concern regarding the fact that online encyclopedias focus too deeply on certain topics that may not be as important as a crucial historical event. This creates a confusion regarding which topic requires more attention for many students. Disagreeing with this argument, the lecturer states that due to limited space, printed encyclopedias do not reflect great diversity of user's interest. The topics presented in the printed editorials are prioritized on the basis of judgement by a group and hence may not represent the view of a larger community.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 379, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...s in them. However, the lecturer rebuts all of the arguments presented in the passage by h...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 180, Rule ID: SOME_EXTEND[1]
Message: Did you mean 'extent' ("extent" is a noun, "extend" is a verb)?
Suggestion: extent
...of the content is inaccurate to certain extend. On the other hand, the professor sugge...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, lastly, may, regarding, so, therefore, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1767.0 1373.03311258 129% => OK
No of words: 321.0 270.72406181 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.5046728972 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23278547379 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02333519497 2.5805825403 117% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548286604361 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 565.2 419.366225166 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.9463824887 49.2860985944 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.923076923 110.228320801 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.6923076923 21.698381199 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.92307692308 7.06452816374 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.323419584198 0.272083759551 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.125241927522 0.0996497079465 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.085913718342 0.0662205650399 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.195153808157 0.162205337803 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0944963528159 0.0443174109184 213% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 13.3589403974 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 53.8541721854 56% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.0289183223 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.92 12.2367328918 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.55 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 63.6247240618 151% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 10.7273730684 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.