ommunal 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.
Both the reading and the lecture are about online encyclopedias. Which are one of the biggest resources represented in the internet. The reading section explains that, online encyclopedias have several problems and are less important; however, the lecture contradicts with the reading section and says that online encyclopedias have a great value for the people who using it.
To begin with, the reading section says that online encyclopedias lack academic credentials to check the errors like traditional encyclopedias; on the other hand, the lecture says that, errors in traditional encyclopedias remain for decades and the errors were not corrected after many years.
Secondly, the reading makes the point that, online encyclopedias are hack able which hackers can remove, edit and alter the texts. The lecture challenges the reading section and implies that online encyclopedias have a parts in it that are not editable. In addition, they have reviewers that, check the important parts of an article and remove harmful and invalid information.
Finally, the reading section implies that, online encyclopedias focus on the well-known articles and cause wrong impression on unnecessary ideas, the lecture challenges the reading section by adding that articles have crucial focus on the main ideas, and online encyclopedias have a great diversity of articles which is very important for the researchers to explore.
- ommunal 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, h 73
- Life today is easier and more comfortable than it was when your grandparents were children.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 60
- Life today is easier and more comfortable than it was when your grandparents were children.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 60
- Both the reading and lecture are about chaco canyon which are called great houses. according to the reading these house were used according to the three competing theories. But the lecture opposing with the theories in the reading section.To begin with, t 65
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?People today spend too much time on personal enjoyment-doing things they like to do-rather than doing things they should do.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 66, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Which” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...lecture are about online encyclopedias. Which are one of the biggest resources repres...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 217, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a part' or simply 'parts'?
Suggestion: a part; parts
... implies that online encyclopedias have a parts in it that are not editable. In additio...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, however, second, secondly, so, well, in addition, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 22.412803532 58% => OK
Preposition: 20.0 30.3222958057 66% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1204.0 1373.03311258 88% => OK
No of words: 217.0 270.72406181 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.54838709677 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.8380880478 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92472472859 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 105.0 145.348785872 72% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.483870967742 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 379.8 419.366225166 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 13.0662251656 61% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 21.2450331126 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 103.853186639 49.2860985944 211% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 150.5 110.228320801 137% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.125 21.698381199 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.375 7.06452816374 161% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.259405256136 0.272083759551 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.135171417135 0.0996497079465 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0416256015461 0.0662205650399 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176227297014 0.162205337803 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0280781706927 0.0443174109184 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.3 13.3589403974 137% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 27.15 53.8541721854 50% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 11.0289183223 147% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.21 12.2367328918 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.54 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 49.0 63.6247240618 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.7273730684 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.498013245 122% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.