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 non specialists 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 author of the reading passage has presented his views against online encyclopedias on grounds of non reliability, prevalance of practices like hacking and susceptibility to misinformation. The speaker, although, has a completely different point of view through which she has countered the logics put forward in the writing passage. Following are the brief portrayal of such arguments.
To start with, the reading passage states that communal online encyclopedia lacks academic credentials since it is not written by rigorous, trained academicians. The professor challenges this notion and goes on to say that no academic encyclopedia is ever free of errors-be it offline or online. She further adds that if mistakes are really an issue, then it is comparatively easier to rectify errors in an online encyclopedia in comparison to it's offline counterpart-which remains printed and go unrectified for years.
Secondly, the reading passage states that online encyclopedias are often victim to mallacious hackers who tend to tamper the original text. The lecturer is quick to argue that in order to prevent fradulent activities of hacking, communal encyclopedias these days publish essential information in read-only format. This protects the articles from further edits. In addition to this, the online encyclopedias also appoint special editors who monitor changes in the articles and corrects information that they believe are untrue.
To wrap up, the text states that communal encyclopedias focus too much on trivial details resulting in a confusion on what is important and what is not. The speaker objects this point by stating that there is always an issue of limited space on offline journals. However, in case of online journals, it is not an issue. Subsequently, a greater variety of articles as per the user's interest can be accomodated in the encyclopedias. This leads to a greater extent of diversity in choice for readers.
The author of the passage and the lecturer have diametrically opposite views regarding online encyclopedias. The degree of disagreement makes it hard for both of them to find a common ground in this regard.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, really, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, in addition, to start with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 30.3222958057 178% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1822.0 1373.03311258 133% => OK
No of words: 337.0 270.72406181 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.40652818991 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28457229495 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13635674241 2.5805825403 122% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 145.348785872 135% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.581602373887 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 574.2 419.366225166 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.667684592 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.176470588 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8235294118 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.41176470588 7.06452816374 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => 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: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.264421003581 0.272083759551 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0752791270196 0.0996497079465 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0596143396739 0.0662205650399 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133446779144 0.162205337803 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0668050766362 0.0443174109184 151% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.3589403974 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 53.8541721854 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 63.6247240618 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.