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 anonline 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 passage and the lecture are about the communal online encyclopedias. The passage holds the position that traditional printed encyclopedias are better than communal online encyclopedias. However, the lecture holds an oppose position, and denies the points made by the passage.
First of all, the passage claims that contributors to communal online encyclopedia often lack academic credentials, thereby the information in it is inaccurate. In contract, the lecture argues that traditional printed encyclopedia is far from perfectly accurate. Moreover, incorrect information in online encyclopedia can be easily corrected, yet incorrect information in traditional printed encyclopedia may remain for decades.
Secondly, the passage suggests the point that online encyclopedia can be accessed by several users, which is more likely to be attacked by hackers. However, the lecture counters the point by listing strategies that prevent this situation from happening. First, the format of online encyclopedia can be set as uneditable format. Second, there are some special editors in online encyclopedia that monitor all the changes made in the file.
Finally, the passage argues that the range of topics in online encyclopedia is too wide, which contains too many trivial information. On the other hands, the lecture states that unlike traditional encyclopedia, which has limited space. Online encyclopedia is able to incorporate great range of interest, and therefore can satisfy great diversity of users.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 223, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...cyclopedias. However, the lecture holds an oppose position, and denies the points made by...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 109, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun information seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much trivial information', 'a good deal of trivial information'.
Suggestion: much trivial information; a good deal of trivial information
...lopedia is too wide, which contains too many trivial information. On the other hands, the lecture states...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 10.0 22.412803532 45% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1298.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 223.0 270.72406181 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.82062780269 5.08290768461 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86434787811 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07960437068 2.5805825403 119% => OK
Unique words: 120.0 145.348785872 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.538116591928 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 425.7 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.55342163355 122% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 28.1683443124 49.2860985944 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 99.8461538462 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1538461538 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.38461538462 7.06452816374 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.35892335493 0.272083759551 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.142262518141 0.0996497079465 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0739904009136 0.0662205650399 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.231110398935 0.162205337803 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0400526637454 0.0443174109184 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 28.84 53.8541721854 54% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.5 11.0289183223 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.18 12.2367328918 132% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.22 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.0 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.