Task1:summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they oppose the specific points made in the reading passage.
Reading:
Communal online encyclopedias represent one of the latest resources to be found on the Internet. They are 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 mark 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 nonspecialist cannot really achieve.
Second, even if the original entry in the online encyclopedia is correct, the communal nature of these online encyclopedias givens 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 and online encyclopedia as, says, a single long-running television program. The traditional encyclopedia provides a considered view of what topic to include or exclude and contains a sense of proportion that online “ democratic” communal encyclopedias do not.
Both article and lecture discuss about communal online encyclopedias. The author criticizes communal online encyclopedias on three points; the encyclopedias contain inaccurate information; unscrupulous users are able to revise content in the encyclopedias; and the encyclopedias do not exclude unimportant topics from important ones. However, the professor disagrees with the criticisms of communal online encyclopedias presented in the article, and he refutes each of the author's points.
First, the article implies that communal online encyclopedias are not always accurate and reliable as traditional printed encyclopedias, because the online encyclopedias are not always written by experts. The professor argues this point by saying that there is no perfectly accurate encyclopedias, and the important point is that how easy add quickly the errors can be corrected. In fact, editing mistakes information presented in online encyclopedias is easier and quicker than in traditional printed encyclopedias.
Second, the article points out that anyone can revise content in the online encyclopedias, therefore, content in the online encyclopedias can be tampered by unscrupulous users or hackers. The professor refutes this point by explaining that online encyclopedias are now prevent the information by presenting some important information in a "read-only" format that cannot be revised. In addition, the online encyclopedias have some expert editors to monitor changes made to articles, and eliminated revisions that are tampered.
Finally, the article states that, the online encyclopedias do not distinguish important topics from unimportant ones, so this creates a false impression. The professor opposes this point by saying that having great variety of subjects on the online encyclopedias is a big advantage. Also diversity of topics covered by the online encyclopedias is a reflection of diversity of people interests. In contrast, traditional printed encyclopedias have limited space, and the editors who choose the topics do not always consider about diversity of people interests.
how easy add quickly the errors can be corrected.
Description: can you re-write this sentence?
Sentence: In fact, editing mistakes information presented in online encyclopedias is easier and quicker than in traditional printed encyclopedias.
Description: A noun, plural, common is not usually followed by a noun, singular, common
Suggestion: Refer to mistakes and information
online encyclopedias are now prevent the information
online encyclopedias can now prevent the information
Sentence: Also diversity of topics covered by the online encyclopedias is a reflection of diversity of people interests.
Description: A noun, plural, common is not usually followed by a noun, plural, common
Suggestion: Refer to people and interests
Sentence: In contrast, traditional printed encyclopedias have limited space, and the editors who choose the topics do not always consider about diversity of people interests.
Description: A noun, plural, common is not usually followed by a noun, plural, common
Suggestion: Refer to people and interests
flaws:
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
Read a good grammar book.
No. of Words: 303 250
Around 250 words wanted. remove ' the encyclopedias contain inaccurate information; unscrupulous users are able to revise content in the encyclopedias; and the encyclopedias do not exclude unimportant topics from important ones.' in the introduction. Don't need to make outlines.
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 24 in 30
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 13 12
No. of Words: 303 250
No. of Characters: 1755 1200
No. of Different Words: 135 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.172 4.2
Average Word Length: 5.792 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.223 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 157 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.308 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.329 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.615 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.467 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.642 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.179 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4