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 passage and the lecture discuss about encyclopedias. While the author of the article argues that communal online encyclopedias are less valuable than traditional printed encyclopedias for the compelling reasons, the lecturer challenges each of these points.
First of all, the passage states that online encyclopedias contain inaccurate information since they lack academically competent contributors. However, the speaker contends this point and mentions that printed encyclopedias also contain inaccurate information and it is difficult to make correction. On the other hand, it is much easier to make correction in online versions.
Secondly, the author suggests that these online encyclopedias are susceptible to be fabricated or changed by unanimous individuals and thus, loses its originality. In contrast, the lecturer claims that the authentication of the information of communal encyclopedias can be ensured by creating read-only format of crucial information and employing special editors to look for any fabrication.
Finally, the article mentions that online versions contain many unnecessary information which creates false information. On the contrary, the professor in the speaking asserts that variability of articles create diversity of work. He also mentions that traditional encyclopedias have limited space and contain fewer information, but space is not a problem on online platform. Thus a lot of information can assist the reader to make their work diverse.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 60, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun information seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much unnecessary information', 'a good deal of unnecessary information'.
Suggestion: much unnecessary information; a good deal of unnecessary information
...e mentions that online versions contain many unnecessary information which creates false information. On the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 377, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ce is not a problem on online platform. Thus a lot of information can assist the rea...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, then, thus, while, as for, in contrast, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1290.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 217.0 270.72406181 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.94470046083 5.08290768461 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.8380880478 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.26223017644 2.5805825403 126% => OK
Unique words: 129.0 145.348785872 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.594470046083 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 408.6 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.55342163355 122% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.5772208423 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.272727273 110.228320801 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7272727273 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 14.1818181818 7.06452816374 201% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More 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: 0.297574265834 0.272083759551 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10713209291 0.0996497079465 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0845100306879 0.0662205650399 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.185990424659 0.162205337803 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.039452994889 0.0443174109184 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 13.3589403974 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 26.81 53.8541721854 50% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.17 12.2367328918 140% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.67 8.42419426049 115% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.