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.
The reading and the lecture are about communal online encyclopedias which are an online collection of articles on various objects, editable or created by any Internet user. The author of the reading believes that such encyclopedias are less valuable than the traditional, printed ones. However, the lecturer refutes all of the claims in the article by saying that such claims arise due to prejudice and ignorance against online encyclopedias, and that the associated risks are a small price compared to what they offer.
First of all, the author points out that contributors to communal online encyclopedia lack academic credentials and hence, can make errors as they are amateurs in the academic field. It is mentioned that, in comparison, traditional encyclopedias are written by trained experts who adhere to standards of academic rigor and therefore are more accurate. The lecturer remarks that this is not a fair point. She states that traditional encyclopedias also have errors. It is not possible to find a comprehensive resource, online or offline. In fact, she further states that it is easier to correct mistakes online, contrasting it with offline printed resources, where it would stay forever.
Secondly, the author contends that malicious hackers can misuse their freedom and spread lies. The lecturer challenges this point as well by mentioning that the need for protection is well recognised and that there are various mechanisms to ensure online encyclopedias stay protected. She further gives two examples. One of them being that crucial facts are rendered 'read-only' online, that is undisputable facts can't be changed by random users and hence will be reliable. The other mechanism she mentions is special editors, which monitors all changes to the articles and can therefore eliminate all harmful activity by vandals.
Finally, the author states that due to the volume of online encyclopedias, important articles are not given more preference over trivial articles. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that as space is not an issue in online encyclopedias, they can cover a variety of topics in line with the diverse interests of users. In contrast, offline encyclopedias have limited space and focus on only specific topics which is a result of the author's judgement. This doesn't always reflect the range of interests of its readers.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 317, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...ted ones. However, the lecturer refutes all of the claims in the article by saying that su...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 486, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... also have errors. It is not possible to find a comprehensive resource, online or...
^^
Line 5, column 413, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...only online, that is undisputable facts cant be changed by random users and hence wi...
^^^^
Line 7, column 436, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...pecific topics which is a result of the authors judgement. This doesnt always reflect t...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 460, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...a result of the authors judgement. This doesnt always reflect the range of interests o...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, in contrast, in fact, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 10.4613686534 210% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 12.0772626932 166% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 22.412803532 147% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1994.0 1373.03311258 145% => OK
No of words: 375.0 270.72406181 139% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31733333333 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40055868397 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86011654774 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 145.348785872 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.544 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 639.0 419.366225166 152% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More 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: 54.8228347486 49.2860985944 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.777777778 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8333333333 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.72222222222 7.06452816374 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.298133586066 0.272083759551 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0798527898403 0.0996497079465 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0696984446466 0.0662205650399 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.177191800256 0.162205337803 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0653629753484 0.0443174109184 147% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.3589403974 105% => 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: 13.58 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 63.6247240618 170% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.7273730684 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.