The passage and the lecture offer two opposing views on the value and trustworthiness of online communal encyclopedias. While the text lists the argument to prove that online encyclopedias are neither trustworthy nor valuable, the professor contradicts those arguments by giving specific reasons.
First and foremost, according to the text, the contributors of the online encyclopedias lack academic credentials which result in inaccuracy and frequent errors. However, the professor notes that even the offline encyclopedias are not accurate. Moreover, the errors in online encyclopedias can be noticed and rectified quite fast while mistakes made in printed encyclopedias can stay there for decades.
Secondly, the passage posits that the online encyclopedias are vulnerable to hackers. On the other hand, the professor notes that online encyclopedias have developed strategies to fight these unscrupulous users. Primarily, it involves putting crucial facts and information in read-only mode and assigning the job of monitoring all the changes made to special editors. These special editors eliminate the malicious changes made on the encyclopedia.
Finally, the text asserts that communal encyclopedias give deep importance to a trivial and popular topic which might be perplexing for the reader. Whereas, the professor argues that printed encyclopedias have limited space so it is essential to make the decision of selecting a small number of topics from a wide variety of material available while there is no such problem with online encyclopedias. So communal encyclopedias represent a greater diversity of user interest when compared to traditional encyclopedias.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 278, Rule ID: SMALL_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, use 'a few', or use 'some'
Suggestion: a few; some
...ntial to make the decision of selecting a small number of topics from a wide variety of material ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, whereas, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1433.0 1373.03311258 104% => OK
No of words: 246.0 270.72406181 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.82520325203 5.08290768461 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96035189615 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22509422061 2.5805825403 125% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.593495934959 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 466.2 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.55342163355 122% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.8765370118 49.2860985944 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.416666667 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.25 7.06452816374 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.284222202489 0.272083759551 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110974583053 0.0996497079465 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0444560477905 0.0662205650399 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.174363797192 0.162205337803 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0162042972809 0.0443174109184 37% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 13.3589403974 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 25.8 53.8541721854 48% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.0289183223 132% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.53 12.2367328918 135% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.08 8.42419426049 120% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.2008830022 152% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.