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 anonline 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 the comparison of the online and traditional encyclopedia. The author of the reading passage claims that offline compilations are more valuable than online and provides three reasons. The lecturer disagrees with the author's point. He claims that the traditional version is just a prejudice against online sources.
The reading passage contends that the writers of the nontraditional source lack academic knowledge, which will be inaccurate. He says that the printed one is more formal than the online encyclopedia. The lecturer believes that no matter which source, it is not perfect. So, the traditional source is not different than the online source.
The author of the passage claims that due to the random people contributing to the online cyclopedia, the page or source will be attacked by unknown users. The lecturer, however, disagrees. He contends that the nontraditional source focuses on the importance of protection. He goes on to say that read-only format is used and special editors clear away the misused sources.
Finally, the author claims that the online cyclopedia has too much unnecessary information, which will make the students such as those who are searching for knowledge about research projects be confused. The professor rebuts this argument by saying that the nontraditional source has a huge space to include a diversity of knowledge, in contrast to printed versions which have limited space. To sum up, the lecturer and the author have conflicting views about online and traditional cyclopedias.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 228, 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.
...than online and provides three reasons. The lecturer disagrees with the authors poi...
^^^
Line 2, column 315, Rule ID: RATHER_THEN[2]
Message: Did you mean 'different 'from''? 'Different than' is often considered colloquial style.
Suggestion: from
...the traditional source is not different than the online source. The author of the ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, so, as to, in contrast, such as, in contrast to, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1324.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 247.0 270.72406181 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.36032388664 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96437052324 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.911035343 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 130.0 145.348785872 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.526315789474 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 414.0 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => 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: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.9363635385 49.2860985944 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.2666666667 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4666666667 21.698381199 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.66666666667 7.06452816374 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.168450196179 0.272083759551 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0655512346812 0.0996497079465 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0773235637025 0.0662205650399 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111646228943 0.162205337803 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0531108664465 0.0443174109184 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 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: 13.51 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.39 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.