The reading and the lecture are both about comparison of communal online encyclopedias and traditional encyclopedias. The author of the reading feels that online encyclopedias could be beneficial as contribute a new article or make an editorial change, however, communal online encyclopedias have significant problems and that makes it less valuable than traditional ones. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. He is of the opinion that downsides of online encyclopedias are less than their benefits.
To begin with, the author argues that writers of communal encyclopedias often lack academic degrees, therefore making their contributions less exact and not well informed. The author mentions that the traditional encyclopedias are written by experts and they are less likely defective. The specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He claims that errors made in online encyclopedias can be easily changed. But the traditional encyclopedias remain same for decades.
Moreover, the writer suggests that online encyclopedias give hackers opportunity to change the information. In the article, it said that once they change the original material, unsuspicious user cannot be aware of the entry has been changed. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning privacy issues can be solved by high security technologies.
Finally, the author posits that communal encyclopedias create false impressions about significance of topic. Moreover, it is stated that it does not provide a clear view of what topics to use. In contrast, the lecturer suggests that online encyclopedias give opportunity to acknowledge different point of views, but traditional ones limit the space. He notes that diversity of views is one of the strongest advantages of communal encyclopedias.
Votes
Essay reference notes: This topic is refereed from another essay topic, developed by user: alta
Essay Categories
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 375, 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.
...it less valuable than traditional ones. The lecturer challenges the claims made by ...
^^^
Line 2, column 254, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: they're
...ncyclopedias are written by experts and theyre less likely defective. The specific arg...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1513.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 267.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.66666666667 5.08290768461 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04229324003 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1857361755 2.5805825403 123% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.558052434457 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 489.6 419.366225166 117% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => 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: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.6128763528 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.5625 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.6875 21.698381199 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.375 7.06452816374 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.36129693343 0.272083759551 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.124485176154 0.0996497079465 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.101833887206 0.0662205650399 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.2202006598 0.162205337803 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0881625699148 0.0443174109184 199% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.3589403974 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.31 53.8541721854 71% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.31 12.2367328918 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.04 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => 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.