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.
Both the reading and the lecture are discussing the merits ansd demerits of communal encyclopedias. The reading passage states the three problems associated with them While, the professor disputes them and provide a detailed solutions to each and every issue.
First and foremost, the reading article mentions that there will be a lack of academic credentials of the online version and therefore there will be more chances of errors. However, the professor points out that there are hardly any encyclopedias online and offline that are without any errors. To add on, in printed form these misatkes will be there forever. In communal form the errors are periodically removed.
Secondly, the comprehension states that these can easily be copied, deleted or misused. Also, once any ammendmend done, the user can never figure it out. On the other hand, the speaker mentions that it can be fixed by using special fax i.e read only format. Additionally, special editors can be hired who can delete any suspiciopus activity. Hence, in this way professer gives a good solution.
To wrap the things up, the final point of discussion is they make a false impresssion due to too frequent focus and depth. Nevertheless, the insructor again not convinced by the issue and provide a very practical solution in online encyclopedia there is no problem regarding space rather it offer great variety of articles and have diversity of topics. Which can be the most strongest advantage of communal encyclopedias.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 226, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'solution'?
Suggestion: solution
...or disputes them and provide a detailed solutions to each and every issue. First and f...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 125, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ic credentials of the online version and therefore there will be more chances of ...
^^
Line 5, column 40, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... Secondly, the comprehension states that these can easily be copied, deleted or m...
^^
Line 5, column 186, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e it out. On the other hand, the speaker mentions that it can be fixed by using s...
^^
Line 7, column 292, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'offers'?
Suggestion: offers
...is no problem regarding space rather it offer great variety of articles and have dive...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 354, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Which” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... articles and have diversity of topics. Which can be the most strongest advantage of ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 371, Rule ID: MOST_SUPERLATIVE[1]
Message: Use only 'strongest' (without 'most') when you use the superlative.
Suggestion: strongest
...e diversity of topics. Which can be the most strongest advantage of communal encyclopedias.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 371, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'most the strongest'.
Suggestion: most the strongest
...e diversity of topics. Which can be the most strongest advantage of communal encyclopedias.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, hence, however, nevertheless, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1259.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 243.0 270.72406181 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.18106995885 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94822203886 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77835994509 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.62962962963 0.540411800872 117% => OK
syllable_count: 405.9 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.6669006523 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.9285714286 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.3571428571 21.698381199 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.92857142857 7.06452816374 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 4.19205298013 191% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.167661486402 0.272083759551 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0512105661846 0.0996497079465 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0441212195491 0.0662205650399 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0940310665281 0.162205337803 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0697037151677 0.0443174109184 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 53.8541721854 85% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.42 8.42419426049 112% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => 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.