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 and the lecture are both about "communal online encyclopedias". In contrast to the passage, the professor argues in supportive of the communal online encyclopedia. She states this misconception is caused due to lack of knowledge of critics about how far the online encyclopedia has come. She casts doubts on the main points made in the reading by providing evidences.
Firstly, passage points out that the communal online encyclopedias lack the accuracy. This is because online contributors often do not have solid academic background. But professor states that traditional encyclopedias also contain errors and those errors may even remain for decades as modifications are not easy and frequent as online encyclopedias.
Second argument provided in the passage is based on susceptibility of online articles to hackers. Professor strongly defends this by stating that communal online encyclopedias have strategies to prevent attacks by hackers. Moreover, she provides two such strategies; make important sections read only and have special editors to check and remove inaccurate and harmful content. Therefore the lecturer states this argument does not hold water.
Third and final passage states that online encyclopedias are mostly focus on trivial and popular topics and gives false impression of what is important and what is not. However, professor states that this point is not valid as online encyclopedias provides wide variety of topics and also she states this as a main reason to the popularity of communal encyclopedias. To support this, she further states that traditional encyclopedias have space constraints and also scope constraints due to limited number of expert editors.
In conclusion, the passage provides three evidence to support the the claim "traditional encyclopedias are more valuable than online encyclopedias". But the professor tries to claim the opposite by refuting each argument by the passage.
- Archaeologists have recently found a fossil of a 150-million-year-old mammalknown as Repenornamus robustus (R. robustus). Interestingly, the mammal'sstomach contained the remains of a psittacosaur dinosaur. Some researchers havetherefore suggested that R 80
- People today spend too much time on personal enjoyment – doing things they like to do – rather than doing things they should do. 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement People in today s world have become too dependent on automobiles Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 45
- Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet 68
- Portrait of an Elderly Woman in a White Bonnet 3
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 379, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
... remove inaccurate and harmful content. Therefore the lecturer states this argument does ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 69, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'focused', 'focussed'.
Suggestion: focused; focussed
...es that online encyclopedias are mostly focus on trivial and popular topics and gives...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 63, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...sage provides three evidence to support the the claim 'traditional encyclopedias a...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 63, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...sage provides three evidence to support the the claim 'traditional encyclopedias a...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 248, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... refuting each argument by the passage.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, therefore, third, in conclusion, in contrast, in contrast to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1680.0 1373.03311258 122% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.69491525424 5.08290768461 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.28863529315 2.5805825403 127% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518644067797 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 539.1 419.366225166 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.23620309051 36% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.2473010481 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.0 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4375 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.9375 7.06452816374 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.245667289273 0.272083759551 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0980766608051 0.0996497079465 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0664727605861 0.0662205650399 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.159652141567 0.162205337803 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0364780392983 0.0443174109184 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 53.8541721854 67% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.72 12.2367328918 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.92 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 63.6247240618 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.