Reading notes
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.
Lecture notes
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 are looking for a realty comprehensive reference work without any mistakes, you are 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 are 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 use in topics that online encyclopedias offer is one of their strongest advantages.
The reading and the lecture are both focus on the topic of communal online encyclopedia. In regards to the passage, the writer puts forth the idea that these type of encyclopedia although look attractive, but still have many flaws which makes them less valuable as compared to traditional ones. The orator of the lecture is quick to point out there are some serious error in the writer's claim. She is of the opinion that communal encyclopedia still are worthy of their name, and addresses, in detail, the trouble with each points made in the passage.
First and foremost, the author of the reading claims that the content of online encyclopedias are mostly inaccurate mainly because their contributors lack proper credentials. It adds on by stating traditional ones are written by experts who are rigid to specific standards. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer, who posits none of the printed encyclopedias have ever been perfect. Moreover, no matter the source-online or offline- these books can never be expected to be 100% accurate. Additionally she says, however in case of online encyclopedias, it is easier to correct the errors, which may not be possible in printed ones.
Secondly, the writer argues that it is easier for unauthorized users to alter and remove the correct information present on communal encyclopedias. Further, once such fabricated changes have been made, the effects can be more devastating when read by an unaware reader. The lecturer counters this statement by pointing out some strategies employed on online encyclopedias to mitigate above mentioned vandalism. She elaborates on the use of read-only format to put crucial facts which cannot be tampered with. Also, there are special editors who keep a look out on unwanted changes and eliminate malicious data.
Finally, the author wraps up his argument by suggesting that communal encyclopedias are not able to reflect important matters and include whatever the topic is, nevertheless traditional ones are able to provide proportionate materials as demanded by the users. The orator takes issue with this claim by contending that due to availability of huge spaces, communal encyclopedia do not have to worry over deciding and winnowing the important and trivial matters. Hence, it does not depend on a group pf author to reflect general opinions and is able to serve great variety and diversity of information, which is in fact it's greatest strength over traditional printed ones.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 90, Rule ID: IN_REGARD_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'regarding' or 'with regard to'.
Suggestion: Regarding; With regard to
... topic of communal online encyclopedia. In regards to the passage, the writer puts forth the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 351, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... by the lecturer, who posits none of the printed encyclopedias have ever been per...
^^
Line 5, column 504, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Additionally,
... never be expected to be 100% accurate. Additionally she says, however in case of online enc...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 78, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s easier for unauthorized users to alter and remove the correct information prese...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, look, may, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, still, as to, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 10.4613686534 229% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 30.3222958057 195% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2097.0 1373.03311258 153% => OK
No of words: 399.0 270.72406181 147% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25563909774 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46933824581 4.04702891845 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89685500085 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 145.348785872 156% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.568922305764 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 675.0 419.366225166 161% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.1967564846 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.352941176 110.228320801 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4705882353 21.698381199 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.35294117647 7.06452816374 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
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: 0.264731161558 0.272083759551 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0820669257724 0.0996497079465 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0559962285515 0.0662205650399 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.159009915269 0.162205337803 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0609944554845 0.0443174109184 138% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.3589403974 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 53.8541721854 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.25 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 63.6247240618 178% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => 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.