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.
Narrator:
Now listen to part of a lecture on the topic you just read about.
Professor:
The communal online encyclopedia will probably never be perfect, but that’s a small price to pay for what it does offer. The criticisms in the reading are largely the result of prejudice against and ignorance about how far online encyclopedias have come.
First, errors: It ’s hardly a fair criticism that encyclopedias online have errors. Traditional encyclopedias have never been close to perfectly accurate. If you’re looking for a really comprehensive reference work without any mistakes, you’re not going to find it—on- or off-line. The real point is that it’s easy for errors in factual material to be corrected in an online encyclopedia—but with the printed and bound encyclopedia, the errors remain for decades.
Second, hacking: online encyclopedias have recognized the importance of protecting their articles from malicious hackers. One strategy they started using is to put the crucial facts in the articles that nobody disputes in a “read-only” format, which is a format that no one can make changes to. That way you’re making sure that the crucial facts in the articles are reliable. Another strategy that’s being used is to have special editors whose job is to monitor all changes made to the articles and eliminate those changes that are clearly malicious.
Third, what’s worth knowing about: The problem for traditional encyclopedias is that they have limited space, so they have to decide what’s important and what’s not. And in practice, the judgments of the group of academics that make these decisions don’t reflect the great range of interests that people really have. But space is definitely not an issue for online encyclopedias. The academic articles are still represented in online encyclopedias, but there can be a great variety of articles and topics that accurately reflect the great diversity of users’ interests. The diversity of views and topics that online encyclopedias offer is one of their strongest advantages.
Both author and lecturer deal with the topic of Encyclopedia. Author claimed that the communal online encyclopedias are less valuable than traditional ones for specific three reasons. Nevertheless, The lecturer opposes each of the claims. In her opinion, It is the prejudice mind which made the negative thought of communal online encyclopedia among the users.
First of all, The writer claims that Contributors to communal online encyclopedia are paucity in having academic credentials. Furthermore, author states that, so such contributions will be partially best and candidly inaccurate in many cases. In contrast, lecturer argues that no any device or equipment would be free from errors. It is impossible to get anything that is 100 percent accurate. Additionally, she says that the errors in the traditional encyclopedias can remain same for decades and can transfer wrong information among the viewers, which would not be in the online encyclopedias, as amendment in the online source would be just a cup of tea.
Secondly, the author mentions that online encyclopedias can provide access to hackers to fabricate and corrupt the information in encyclopedias. on top of that, author adds that such fabricate made would be unknown to anyone which is not possible in traditional one. However, lecture call this argument into question by saying that the information in the online source can be put under read only format which can protects the file from hackers. Further, he remarks that there will be special editors in the online encyclopedias who looks and removes the malicious files, if any would appear as one.
Finally, author asserts that communal encyclopedias focus deeply on trivial and repetitively on trivial topics which can perplex the user on which one is important and which one is not. As lecturer opposes the claim by stating that traditional encyclopedias are the one restricted on space. So, they will be the one who have to think on what is important and what is not. She further pointed out that space would not be issue on communal online encyclopedia, and using diverse ideas and view point can make them better.
In conclusion, The lecturer and authors are not in agreement on their points on communal online encyclopedias.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 278, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...ases. In contrast, lecturer argues that no any device or equipment would be free f...
^^
Line 5, column 146, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: On
...rrupt the information in encyclopedias. on top of that, author adds that such fabr...
^^
Line 5, column 414, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[2]
Message: The verb 'can' requires the base form of the verb: 'protect'
Suggestion: protect
...be put under read only format which can protects the file from hackers. Further, he rema...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 187, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” 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.
... one is important and which one is not. As lecturer opposes the claim by stating t...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, look, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, in conclusion, in contrast, first of all, in many cases, on top of that
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 10.4613686534 201% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 5.04856512141 317% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 12.0772626932 190% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1903.0 1373.03311258 139% => OK
No of words: 364.0 270.72406181 134% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22802197802 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36792674256 4.04702891845 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9386552473 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 145.348785872 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521978021978 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 601.2 419.366225166 143% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.6246715323 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.722222222 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2222222222 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.88888888889 7.06452816374 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.321384849585 0.272083759551 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.113555794465 0.0996497079465 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0690112226822 0.0662205650399 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1998594791 0.162205337803 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0612314244034 0.0443174109184 138% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 53.8541721854 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 63.6247240618 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.