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 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.
The article states that communal online encyclopedias are less valuable than traditonal, printed encyclopedias and gives three reasons of support. However, the professor argues that its the ignorance of people about how far has it come, that is the issue and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading claims that contributors of communal online encyclopedia lack academic credentials that makes partially informed and inaccurate in many cases. However, the professor states that perfect encyclopedia can never be found. He further states that it is easy to correct the errors in online encyclopedia than on printed one.
Second, the article states that information can be deleted and corrupted by vandals and hackers in online encyclopedia. The professor refutes this by stating that online encyclopedia keeps its crucial informations in read only format so that none can be able to edit such information. The professor further explains that there are special editors who judge all the changes that happen in online encyclopedia.
Third, the reading posits that online encylopedia focuses on trivial and popular topics that confuse people about what is important and what is not. The professor opposes this by stating that space prolem is only on traditonal encyclopedia so that every informations should be judged before publishing it. However,the professor says that space is not an issue at all on online encyclopedia and it offers a variety of informations to satisfy diverse 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 |
- Integrated WritingIn the United States employees typically work five days a week for eight hours each day However many employees want to work a four day week and are willing to accept less pay in order to do so A mandatory policy requiring companies t
- Because of climate change more and more land that was once used to grow crops or provide food for animals is turning to dry unusable desert land There are many proposals about how to stop this process known as desertification A number of proposals involve 74
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Life today is easier and more comfortable than it was when your grandparents were children 82
- 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 how 85
- 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 how 85
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 183, Rule ID: IT_IS[17]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
...ort. However, the professor argues that its the ignorance of people about how far h...
^^^
Line 1, column 232, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'comes'?
Suggestion: comes
...gnorance of people about how far has it come, that is the issue and refutes each of ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 314, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , the
... be judged before publishing it. However,the professor says that space is not an iss...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, second, so, third, in many cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => 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: 1276.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 235.0 270.72406181 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.42978723404 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91531732006 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89481827381 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 128.0 145.348785872 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.544680851064 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 411.3 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 26.8127883637 49.2860985944 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 116.0 110.228320801 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3636363636 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.81818181818 7.06452816374 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.338003515392 0.272083759551 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.152419922892 0.0996497079465 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.072021230162 0.0662205650399 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.234376475851 0.162205337803 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0525581026856 0.0443174109184 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 13.3589403974 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 53.8541721854 62% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.91 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.