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.
Word Count: 296
The reading and the lecture both talk about communal and traditional encyclopedia. The author of the reading states that communal online encyclopedias have many problems and proposed three problems which make them less valuable than traditional encyclopedias. The lecturer challenges all the claims made by the author. She is of the opinion that all problems are discussed by author are faulty.
To begin with, the author of the reading argues that lacking academic credentials making communal contributions inaccurate and inadequate. The article also says that traditional encyclopedias are following strandard academic because of trained contributor. The lecturer refute the specific argument made by the author. She mentions that Traditional encyclopedias are not always correct and they made mistakes. However she also says that traditional encyclopedias are not checked regularly as like as online communal encyclopedias and for this reason wrong information in traditional encyclopedias are emain for decades.
Secondly, The article mentions that, communal encyclopedias have a greater chance of hacking and it causes to fabricate and corrupt information but it is not happen in traditional encyclopedia. By disproving this claim, the lecturer argues that online communal has special editor who can eliminate wrong and malicious information. Moreover she also says that communal have aricle which is used for saving crucial facts and protection is the important key for this encyclopedias.
Thirdly, The author says that communal encyclopedias focas in unimportant topic which creates false impression. The article says that traditional encyclopedia has a sense which one is important and which one is not important and publish relevant information. However the lecturer rebuts this claim and mentions that traditional has limited space but communal have greater space which can use diversity of information. For instance she also says that diversity have stronger advantage for communal encyclopedias.
Summarise the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they case doubt on specific points made in the reading passage.
The reading and the lecture both talk about communal and traditional encyclopedia. The author of the reading states that communal online encyclopedias have many problems and proposed three problems which make them less valuable than traditional encyclopedias. The lecturer challenges all the claims made by the author. She is of the opinion that all problems are discussed by author are faulty.
To begin with, the author of the reading argues that lacking academic credentials making communal contributions inaccurate and inadequate. The article also says that traditional encyclopedias are following standard academic because of trained contributor. The lecturer refute the specific argument made by the author. She mentions that Traditional encyclopedias are not always correct and they made mistakes. However she also says that traditional encyclopedias are not checked regularly as like as online communal encyclopedias and for this reason wrong information in traditional encyclopedias are remained for decades.
Secondly, The article mentions that, communal encyclopedias have a greater chance of hacking and it causes to make up and corrupt information but it is not happen in traditional encyclopedia. By disproving this claim, the lecturer argues that online communal has special editor who can cut wrong and malicious information. Moreover she also says that communal have article which is used for saving crucial facts and protection is the important key for this encyclopedias.
Thirdly, The author says that communal encyclopedias focus in unimportant topic which creates a false impression. The article says that traditional encyclopedia has a sense which one is important and which one is not important and publish relevant information. However the lecturer rebuts this claim and mentions that traditional has limited space but communal have greater space which can use diversity of information. For instance she also says that diversity have stronger advantage for communal encyclopedias.
- In the United States, it had been common practice since the late 1960s not to suppress natural forest fires. The "let it burn" policy assumed that forest fire would burn themselves out quickly, without causing much damage. However, in the summer 66
- The cane toad is a large (1.8 kg) amphibian species native to Central and South America. It was deliberately introduced to Australia in 1935 with the expectation that it would protect farmers’ crops by eating harmful insects. Unfortunately, the toad mul 73
- The cane toad is a large (1.8 kg) amphibian species native to Central and South America. It was deliberately introduced to Australia in 1935 with the expectation that it would protect farmers’ crops by eating harmful insects. Unfortunately, the toad mul 70
- In the United States, it had been common practice since the late 1960s not to suppress natural forest fires. The "let it burn" policy assumed that forest fire would burn themselves out quickly, without causing much damage. However, in the summer of 1988, 60
- 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, 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 261, 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.
...aluable than traditional encyclopedias. The lecturer challenges all the claims made...
^^^
Line 5, column 270, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'refutes'.
Suggestion: refutes
...se of trained contributor. The lecturer refute the specific argument made by the autho...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 410, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
... always correct and they made mistakes. However she also says that traditional encyclop...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 108, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'making'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'cause' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: making
...greater chance of hacking and it causes to make up and corrupt information but it is no...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 157, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'happened'.
Suggestion: happened
...p and corrupt information but it is not happen in traditional encyclopedia. By disprov...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 324, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Moreover,
...an cut wrong and malicious information. Moreover she also says that communal have articl...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 366, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'articled'.
Suggestion: articled
...reover she also says that communal have article which is used for saving crucial facts ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 453, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...and protection is the important key for this encyclopedias. Thirdly, The author...
^^^^
Line 13, column 262, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...rtant and publish relevant information. However the lecturer rebuts this claim and ment...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, for instance, 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: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 7.30242825607 205% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 20.0 12.0772626932 166% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 19.0 30.3222958057 63% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1723.0 1373.03311258 125% => OK
No of words: 298.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.78187919463 5.08290768461 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15483772266 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12592673525 2.5805825403 121% => OK
Unique words: 133.0 145.348785872 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.446308724832 0.540411800872 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 548.1 419.366225166 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => 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: 44.8444795237 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.6875 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.625 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.1875 7.06452816374 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 4.19205298013 215% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.264115722122 0.272083759551 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0977420541723 0.0996497079465 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.070183543018 0.0662205650399 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.182841721766 0.162205337803 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0422096473822 0.0443174109184 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.3589403974 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 53.8541721854 67% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.24 12.2367328918 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => 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.