communal online encyclopedias-integrated essay.
The professor in the lecture compares and contrasts the advantages of the online communal encyclopedia with the disadvantages mentioned in the reading passage stating mainly the strategies and protections those are provided to make the online communal encyclopedia more reliable.
First of all the lecturer points out a fact that whether it is on or offline the information of any communal encyclopedia is never perfect. So according to her it would be a prejudice to say that the communal online encyclopedias are inaccurate, rather it is easier to rectify the inaccuracy online than the traditional encyclopedias.
Secondly, she completely disagrees with the passage that mentions about communal online encyclopedias can be changed by the hackers and vandals because many useful strategies are being taken to protect the originality of the encyclopedias by creating read-only formats and assigning single editors for the articles so that it can not be altered by the invaders.
Finally, the professor claims that the online communal encyclopedias have greater advantages than the traditional ones because the larger diversities of interst in academic use are not reflected on, in the case of the traditional encyclopedias, as it has limited space than the online encyclopedias. Hence, it represents the greater interest due to the unlimited space available online.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2013-09-11 | Mohadeseh2 | 80 | view |
- integrated essay, official toefl ibt tests.test-2. 70
- standardized tests like the TOEFL determine whether students should be admitted to a college or university. Do you agree or disagree? 90
- CHACO CANYON- INTEGRATED ESSAY 90
- Some people prefer to eat at food stands or restaurants. Other people prefer to prepare and eat food at home. Which do you prefer? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 70
- INTEGRATED ESSAY. 80
flaws:
No. of Sentences: 6 12
Avg. Sentence Length: 35 21.0
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 26 in 30
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 6 12
No. of Words: 210 250
No. of Characters: 1142 1200
No. of Different Words: 114 1550
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.807 4.3
Average Word Length: 5.438 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.167 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 94 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 78 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 55 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 35 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.94 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.833 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.495 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.811 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.187 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4