ommunal 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.
While the passage argues about the credibility of communal online encyclopedias, the lecture provides a different opposing
arguments.
Firstly, the passage claims that the information provided by these online encyclopedias have partial information or can be
inaccurate, this is because of the fact that anyone can upload and edit the information without having proper academic
knowledge. However, the lecture argues that no encyclopedias are 100% reliable. This is evident by the fact that even the
traditional encyclopedias had errors which unlike online encyclopedias could not be corrected.
Secondly, the passage claims that the content of these encyclopedias are unreliable as the contents of the internet are always open to
hackers and vandals who can tamper the information. The lecture contradicts this by stating that there are many steps taken to
ensure the security of these encyclopedias and many contents of these encyclopedias are in read-only format. Also, the security
teams monitor the credibility of the information.
Finally, the passage asserts that these encyclopedias pay much attention to non-important topics. This claim is supported by the
the assertion that many times these online encyclopedias provide equal importance to a television program and a major
historical event. The lecture argues that due to limited space traditional encyclopedias had limited information which was
selected by a few members but as these online encyclopedias have no space issues they can upload diversity of information
which may interest users.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-16 | TiOluwani97 | 87 | view |
| 2023-07-11 | keisham | 83 | view |
| 2023-04-05 | Dat_Nguyen | 70 | view |
| 2022-12-28 | MotherAstronaut | 85 | view |
| 2022-12-28 | MotherAstronaut | 85 | view |
- Some people think that they can make as much noise as they want while others think that the amount of noise people make should be strictly controlled 73
- Some people think because some children find some subjects such as mathematics and philosophy difficult they ought to be optional instead of compulsory To what extent do you agree 82
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Living today is more comfortable and easier than when your grandparents were children Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement The extended family grandparents cousins aunts and uncles is less important now than it was in the past Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 70
- The bar chart shows the percentage of people who ate five portions of fruits and vegetables per day in UK from 2001 to 2008 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'argument'?
Suggestion: argument
... lecture provides a different opposing arguments. Firstly, the passage claims that the ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 21, Rule ID: BECAUSE_OF_THE_FACT_THAT[1]
Message: This phrase is redundant. Use simply 'because'.
Suggestion: because
...ormation or can be inaccurate, this is because of the fact that anyone can upload and edit the informat...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 125, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...tant topics. This claim is supported by the the assertion that many times these online ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 125, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...tant topics. This claim is supported by the the assertion that many times these online ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1345.0 1373.03311258 98% => OK
No of words: 234.0 270.72406181 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.74786324786 5.08290768461 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91114542567 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16946829248 2.5805825403 123% => OK
Unique words: 119.0 145.348785872 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.508547008547 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 439.2 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.55342163355 122% => 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: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => 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: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.8197461606 49.2860985944 129% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.5 110.228320801 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4 21.698381199 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.1 7.06452816374 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 14.0 4.09492273731 342% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => 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: 0.309159581215 0.272083759551 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.133008617426 0.0996497079465 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0733891949067 0.0662205650399 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115046368794 0.162205337803 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0940208016965 0.0443174109184 212% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 13.3589403974 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 22.75 53.8541721854 42% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 5.55761589404 234% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 11.0289183223 143% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.37 12.2367328918 134% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.16 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
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.