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 rigour 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, online encyclopedias are one of the latest resources to be found on the internet, it says that user can contribute a new article or make an editorial change in an existing one. And the encyclopedia is authored by the whole community of internet users. And also mentioned that the online encyclopedias have several problems than the traditional printed encyclopedias. And provide three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that the traditional encyclopedias can never be perfect And can ignore many aspects too, And refutes each of the author’s reason.
First, the reading claims that 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 no specialists cannot really achieve. the professor refutes this point by saying that the in traditional encyclopedias never be accurate and error free but in online it is easy to correct the errors and manage them, but in the traditional encyclopedia the errors can be there for the decades.
Second, the article posits that even if the original information in 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. the professor opposes this point by explaining that the online encyclopedia and read only format and we can reliable on in the sensitive information on that. for this purpose, they have some special editors who’s job is to remove the malicious information from it.
Third, the reading says that, 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. the professor oppose this point by explaining that the space is not an issue in online encyclopedia and gives the explanation for the same.
we also learn that both the statement refutes each other’s point
| 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 |
- Some parents forbid young children from owning smart phones cell phones with Internet access while others disagree and believe that they are important tools for keeping in touch Which point of view do you think is better and why 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement It is more important to keep your old friends than it is to make new friends Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 70
- Some parents forbid young children from owning smart phones cell phones with Internet access while others disagree and believe that they are important tools for keeping in touch Which point of view do you think is better and why 73
- Under British and Australian laws a jury in a criminal case has no access to information about the defendant s past criminal record This protects the person who is being accused of the crime Some lawyers have suggested that this practice should be changed 56
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 203, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: And
...an editorial change in an existing one. and the encyclopedia is authored by the who...
^^^
Line 1, column 278, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: And
... the whole community of internet users. and also mentioned that the online encyclop...
^^^
Line 1, column 393, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: And
... the traditional printed encyclopedias. and provide three reasons of support. Howev...
^^^
Line 1, column 393, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... the traditional printed encyclopedias. and provide three reasons of support. Howev...
^^^
Line 3, column 356, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...t no specialists cannot really achieve. the professor refutes this point by saying ...
^^^
Line 5, column 281, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...orrupt information in the encyclopedia. the professor opposes this point by explain...
^^^
Line 5, column 439, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: For
...n in the sensitive information on that. for this purpose, they have some special ed...
^^^
Line 5, column 488, Rule ID: WHOS[3]
Message: Did you mean 'whose'?
Suggestion: whose
...purpose, they have some special editors who’s job is to remove the malicious informat...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 208, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...n of what is important and what is not. the professor oppose this point by explaini...
^^^
Line 7, column 222, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'opposes'.
Suggestion: opposes
...mportant and what is not. the professor oppose this point by explaining that the space...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: We
... gives the explanation for the same. we also learn that both the statement refu...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, really, second, so, third, in many cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 7.30242825607 274% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1842.0 1373.03311258 134% => OK
No of words: 341.0 270.72406181 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.40175953079 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29722995808 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05735598724 2.5805825403 118% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521994134897 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 592.2 419.366225166 141% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 1.51434878587 462% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.6259084175 49.2860985944 139% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.571428571 110.228320801 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3571428571 21.698381199 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.07142857143 7.06452816374 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 11.0 4.19205298013 262% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.419118343359 0.272083759551 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.140249119406 0.0996497079465 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0919845146642 0.0662205650399 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.210223987034 0.162205337803 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.12230537511 0.0443174109184 276% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 13.3589403974 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 53.8541721854 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.34 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 63.6247240618 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.