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 onlineencyclopedias 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 reading and lecture discuss about the communal online encycopedias, one of contemporary sources where contributors can add new article as well as can make editorial changes. The former argues that as unlike traditional encycopedias, latest online resources has huge problems, and provides a three issues to support, but latter challenges each of these points.
First of all, the author of the passage asserts that communal online encycopedias contributirs are often lack in education, and does not hold any accuracy than traditional experts. However, the professor in the lecture counters that there is none perfect exist in the world. Even a reference either online or offline hold errors, there are not any sources where every article is 100% accurate or right.
Secondly, according to the passage, experts opined that communal online encycopedias gives chance to hackers to hack the crucial information which is not possible in traditional encycopedias. In contrast, the lecture strongly object this idea. She supports her argument by presenting the example of reliability of communal online encycopedias. The format of latest resources cannot be changes which kept the information safely, and there are several editors to monitor the articles frequently, if someone dare to hack also, then editor can change them quickly.
Finally, the passage claims that contemporary online encycopedias contents are banal, which makes reader, and scholar due to mundane common topics. Nevertheless, like two reasons before, the professor in her lecture proclaims that this idea is not feasible because traditional have limited space. Unlike modern online encycopedias, traditional encycopedias do not have great variety of articles. The academic online encycopedias contains massive number of articles which might be great advantages her searchers.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 241, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: ', the latest'.
Suggestion: , the latest
... that as unlike traditional encycopedias, latest online resources has huge problems, and...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 356, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'of the latest'.
Suggestion: of the latest
...ommunal online encycopedias. The format of latest resources cannot be changes which kept ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, then, well, in contrast, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1579.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 278.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.67985611511 5.08290768461 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90144205984 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 145.348785872 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.60071942446 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 513.9 419.366225166 123% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.6054825736 49.2860985944 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.461538462 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3846153846 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.61538461538 7.06452816374 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.200060947441 0.272083759551 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0695849926163 0.0996497079465 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0372259485637 0.0662205650399 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123427955792 0.162205337803 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0230322918471 0.0443174109184 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 13.3589403974 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 53.8541721854 62% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.66 12.2367328918 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.96 8.42419426049 118% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 63.6247240618 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 10.7273730684 144% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.2008830022 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.