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 Internetuser 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 onlineencyclopedia 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 toinclude or exclude and contains a sense of proportion that online “democratic” communal encyclopedias do not.
The reading passage states that online encyclopedias are less valuable and less reliable than the traditional ones. The reading passage points out that any one of internet users can make a correction or change in the content. However, the speaker states the opposite, as she says that the traditional encyclopedias never were perfect and it was so hard to correct them, but the online ones are more reliable as they can be corrected by trained editors, who prevent any insidious change.
Second, according to the reading passage, online encyclopedias give the chance to hackers to fabricate. On the other hand, the lecturer points out that is never the case in these online encyclopedias because the online ones are using a format that is not feasible to hacked or changed. Therefore, the content of facts are trustworthy.
Third, as the passage indicates, online encyclopedias focus too much on the trite things, giving them importance than they actual are. However, the speaker says that because of there is a massive space in online encyclopedias if compared to the printed one, this space gives a chance for diversity which in turn meets and reflects many different users. However, the printed one has not enough space; therefore, it choose only the important issues.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-16 | TiOluwani97 | 87 | view |
| 2023-07-11 | keisham | 83 | view |
| 2023-04-05 | Dat_Nguyen | 70 | view |
| 2022-12-28 | MotherAstronaut | 85 | view |
| 2022-12-28 | MotherAstronaut | 85 | view |
- People should not be misled by the advertising competition between Coldex and Cold Away both popular over the counter cold medications that anyone can purchase without a doctor s prescription Each brand is accusing the other of causing some well known unw 60
- In twenty years there will be fewer cars in use than there are today 70
- Important truths begin as outrageous or at least uncomfortable attacks upon the accepted wisdom of the time 50
- To understand the most important characteristics of a society one must study its major cities 50
- As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea Promofoods requested that eight million cans of tuna be returned for testing last year Promofoods concluded that the cans did not after all contain chemicals that posed a health risk This 38
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 332, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
...ersity which in turn meets and reflects many different users. However, the printed one has not...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 415, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'chooses'?
Suggestion: chooses
...one has not enough space; therefore, it choose only the important issues.
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, second, so, therefore, third, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 19.0 30.3222958057 63% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1073.0 1373.03311258 78% => OK
No of words: 209.0 270.72406181 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13397129187 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.80221413058 4.04702891845 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72396340814 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 121.0 145.348785872 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.578947368421 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 349.2 419.366225166 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => 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: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.8763238331 49.2860985944 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.222222222 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2222222222 21.698381199 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.22222222222 7.06452816374 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.09492273731 73% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.306423216504 0.272083759551 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.123099772213 0.0996497079465 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0657611534776 0.0662205650399 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.210182257727 0.162205337803 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0185709224204 0.0443174109184 42% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.3589403974 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 53.8541721854 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.0289183223 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 47.0 63.6247240618 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted. The correct pattern:
para 1: introduction
para 2: doubt 1
para 3: doubt 2
para 4: doubt 3
Less contents wanted from the reading passages(25%), more content wanted from the lecture (75%).
Don't need a conclusion paragraph.
Read sample essays from ETS:
http://www.testbig.com/users/toeflwritingmaster
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.