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 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 reading introduces us the communal online encyclopedia which is one of the latest resources on the Internet and the Internet users can contribute a new article or make an editorial change in an existing one, and the reading states its problems and provides three reasons of support. On the other hand, the professor disagrees and refutes each author's reasons. She says that although the online encyclopedia never become a one hundred percentage accurate resource, it still is a reliable one.
First, the reading states that the online encyclopedia is written by nonspecialists and it has not as many standards of academics as the traditional encyclopedia. On the contrary, the professor says neither the online encyclopedia nor the traditional one are comprehensive sources. She mentions that on the online encyclopedia, scholars can find errors to be corrected, but on the traditional one, errors could be remained for decades.
In addition, the reading concerns about hackers and vandals and says that this online open source gives them the opportunity to interfere information in the online encyclopedia. In contrast, the professor argues with this notion. She claims that programmers of the online encyclopedia considered this catastrophic, and settled read only formats. Also, some editors always monitor articles in order to prohibit irrelevant information.
Last but not least, the reading claims that the online encyclopedia pays too much attention on popular topics and considers them as essential as scientific topics. A user can gain same amount results from both issues. In contrast, the professor refutes this point by saying that the traditional encyclopedia could not reflect people interests, but the online one does. She claims that the online encyclopedia has enormous diversity of people interests.
- TPO-15 - Integrated Writing Task The cane toad is a large (1.8 kg) amphibian species native to Central and South America. It was deliberately introduced to Australia in 1935 with the expectation that it would protect farmers' crops by eating harmful insec 67
- In 1938 an archaeologist in Iraq acquired a set of clay jars that had been excavated two years earlier by villagers constructing a railroad line. The vessel was about 2,200 years old. Each clay jay contained a copper cylinder surrounding an iron rod. The 79
- TPO-44 - Independent Writing Task Some people believe that when busy parents do not have a lot of time to spend with their children, the best use of that time is to have fun playing games or sports. Others believe that it is best to use that time doing th 10
- One of the threats to endangered sea turtle species is the use of nets by commercial shrimp-fishing boats. When turtles get accidentally caught in the nets, they cannot rise to the surface of the ocean to breathe, and they die. Some people suggest that t 80
- TPO-08 - Integrated Writing Task Toward the end of his life, the Chevalier de Seingalt (1725-1798) wrote a long memoir recounting his life and adventures. The Chevalier was a somewhat controversial figure, but since he met many famous people, including ki 80
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 26 in 30
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 12
No. of Words: 282 250
No. of Characters: 1509 1200
No. of Different Words: 150 150
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.098 4.2
Average Word Length: 5.351 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.939 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 124 80
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 92 60
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 67 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.143 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.963 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.397 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.581 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.179 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 4
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'if', 'so', 'still', 'in addition', 'in contrast', 'on the contrary', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.260450160772 0.261695866417 100% => OK
Verbs: 0.135048231511 0.158904122519 85% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0996784565916 0.0723426182421 138% => OK
Adverbs: 0.032154340836 0.0435111971325 74% => OK
Pronouns: 0.032154340836 0.0277247811725 116% => OK
Prepositions: 0.112540192926 0.128828473217 87% => OK
Participles: 0.0225080385852 0.0370669169778 61% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.01756381268 2.5805825403 117% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0096463022508 0.0208969081088 46% => Some infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.0 0.00154638098197 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.135048231511 0.128158765124 105% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.016077170418 0.0158828679856 101% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0032154340836 0.0114777025283 28% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1829.0 1645.83664459 111% => OK
No of words: 282.0 271.125827815 104% => OK
Chars per words: 6.48581560284 6.08160592843 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09790868904 4.04852973271 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.446808510638 0.374372842146 119% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.336879432624 0.287516216867 117% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.251773049645 0.187439937562 134% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.177304964539 0.113142543107 157% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01756381268 2.5805825403 117% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.54609929078 0.539623497131 101% => OK
Word variations: 55.3904466081 53.8517498576 103% => OK
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0529801325 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.1428571429 21.7502111507 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.103377092 49.3711431718 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.642857143 132.220823453 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1428571429 21.7502111507 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.714285714286 0.878197800319 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.39072847682 0% => OK
Readability: 53.8308004053 50.5018328374 107% => OK
Elegance: 1.98387096774 1.90840788429 104% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.338473379643 0.549887131256 62% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.110712141237 0.142949733639 77% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0935400358988 0.0787303798458 119% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.58949883403 0.631733273073 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.178701528143 0.139662658121 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.150692226311 0.266732575781 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0739876528268 0.103435571967 72% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.438856179823 0.414875509568 106% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0794540259467 0.0530846634433 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.251587412818 0.40443939384 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0549576671522 0.0528353158467 104% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.26048565121 94% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 3.49668874172 143% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 3.62251655629 110% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 3.1766004415 94% => OK
Total topic words: 12.0 10.2958057395 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.