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 expertswho 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 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.
The reading states that the communal encyclopedias have several important problems which makes them less valuable than traditional, printed encyclopedias and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that me must consider the vast information we gain through communal encyclopedias and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading claims that the contributors to online encyclopedia often lack academic credentials. The professor refutes thus point by saying that there are no traditional encyclopedias that are perfectly accurate. When we do a mistake, we can easily correct in communal encyclopedias. Whereas, it takes decades for mistakes to get rectified in a printed traditional encyclopedias.
Second, the reading posits that even if the original entry is correct, there is a great chance of fabricating information by hackers. However, the professor contends that there is no chance to change any essential information. He states that, the weed only format was included in the software such that no one can fabricate or correct facts. Moreover, special editors are hired to monitor all changes that are taking place and they will restrict unscrupulous activities which are noticed by them.
Third, the reading avers that communal encyclopedias focus too profoundly on trivial and popular topics. The professor opposes this point by explaining that traditional encyclopedias have limited space and can't describe variety of topics. In contrast, communal encyclopedias do focus on diversified fields and provides information on all the topics that are present in current environment, which makes the most reliable.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 372, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'encyclopedia'?
Suggestion: encyclopedia
... get rectified in a printed traditional encyclopedias. Second, the reading posits that even ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 206, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...al encyclopedias have limited space and cant describe variety of topics. In contrast...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, third, thus, whereas, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1411.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 248.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.68951612903 5.08290768461 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96837696647 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08169790744 2.5805825403 119% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 145.348785872 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.596774193548 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 440.1 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.6162393057 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.538461538 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0769230769 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.15384615385 7.06452816374 87% => OK
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 : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.217656456922 0.272083759551 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0749531379722 0.0996497079465 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.055621020417 0.0662205650399 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135131936391 0.162205337803 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0657883227124 0.0443174109184 148% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 53.8541721854 65% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.72 12.2367328918 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.29 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27 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.