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 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 longrunning 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 discusses about the communal online encyclopedia is a good or a bad idea. The former argues that this practice is disadvantageous for three reasons, but the lecture contradicts each of these points.
First of all, the author contends that people making their contribution to the online encyclopedia lacks academic knowledge and are not trained experts and therefore cannot stick to the academic rigor. However, the lecture argues that the traditional printed encyclopedias are also not perfectly reliable since the errors made on it remains there for decades but with online anybody can correct them, thus to really find a comprehensive resource there is none.
Second of all, the text claims that the entries on the online encyclopedias are not protected and can easily be fabricated and thus any new user would not be able to judge whether the text has been tempered or not. In contrast, the professor rebuts that one can easily prevent hacking of the online encyclopedias by having a special format by which one can conclude that whether it was changed or not. Also, the lecture says that one can have special editors who monitor any changes done and can remove the malicious inputs.
Finally, the reading asserts that online encyclopedias include trending or popular topics only which might not be even important but the traditional encyclopedias includes a sense of proportion. On the other hand, the listening counters that online encyclopedias provides more space than traditional do and thus can include wide variety of diversity on topics which is the strongest advantage.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, really, second, so, therefore, thus, in contrast, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 20.0 30.3222958057 66% => 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: 1353.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 261.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18390804598 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0193898071 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79657794395 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.570881226054 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 436.5 419.366225166 104% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => 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: 29.0 21.2450331126 137% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 48.0416485979 49.2860985944 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 150.333333333 110.228320801 136% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.0 21.698381199 134% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.0 7.06452816374 184% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.286645156574 0.272083759551 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.122573280663 0.0996497079465 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0617389395216 0.0662205650399 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.169154474983 0.162205337803 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.030088043314 0.0443174109184 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 13.3589403974 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.58 53.8541721854 62% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 11.0289183223 143% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.36 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.25 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.7273730684 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.498013245 130% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.