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.
Both the reading and the listening lecture give some information about the problems of online encyclopedias comparing with traditional ones. What is written in the text is either refuted or challenged by the lecturer.
First of all, the reading claims that the online encyclopedia has a lack of official academic references which are wrong in many cases. Printed encyclopedias were handwritten by professionals who are experts of knowledge, yet the professor refutes this point by saying that online encyclopedias may have errors but, printed ones may have also errors. These printed ones remain decades because of comprehensive error has been occurred.
Secondly, the author posits even if there is a natural edition of the encyclopedia is right, users and hackers can negatively redirect files contexts by deleting or changing it's containing information. However, this argument rebutted by the lecturer. She elaborates on this by mentioning starting a crucial system that blocks others to not change the format of the website and protects the original copy.
Finally, the article puts forward the online encyclopedias have too great information by focusing too much. Doing this style creates a bad interest from the idea which is crucial or not, but the professor opposes this point by explaining that printed encyclopedias have limited space, so they only give space what is important. Furthermore, the information can not have great depth on these files. So, online ones have no limited space. Spaces are no issue on this. They greatly reflect all knowledge which makes them the strongest side of online encyclopedias to use.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 67, Rule ID: A_LOT_OF_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun official seems to be countable; consider using: 'a lack of officials'.
Suggestion: a lack of officials
...claims that the online encyclopedia has a lack of official academic references which are wrong in ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 193, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
...edias were handwritten by professionals who are experts of knowledge, yet the professor...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, as to, first of all, in many cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1387.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 258.0 270.72406181 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.37596899225 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00778971557 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8778828334 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.612403100775 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 440.1 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 61.738131967 49.2860985944 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.0714285714 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4285714286 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.14285714286 7.06452816374 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.254042435827 0.272083759551 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0820876049234 0.0996497079465 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0590880339309 0.0662205650399 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.14400711129 0.162205337803 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0743158333229 0.0443174109184 168% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 13.3589403974 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 53.8541721854 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.3 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 10.7273730684 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.