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.
The author has tried to establish the point of view that despite the benefits it has to offer, communal encyclopedias are still notorious and can't replace the traditional ones just yet. Surprsingly, the speaker in the lecture seems to be quite at odds in this regard. By defending each of the three points presented; possibility of false information, risk of malicious data and and the improper priortization of contents, that are labelled as possible threats, she opposes the essayist and thus justifies that the communal encyclopedias have a lot to offer in place of traditional ones.
As a first attempt, when the writer tries to explain how communal encyclopedias provide access to just anyone without proper background check, therby risking inaccurate information, the lecturer strongly condemns her argument. She goes on to elaborate how the possibily of error is so universal that even the traditional ones are not fool-proof as well. It is in this regard she dismisses the writer's first jsutification.
Moving further, the orator goes on to contend the possibility of potentail hacking given by the author as the second reason for his/ her statement. According to the lecturer, this risk has been safeguarded well enough through the reforms such as Read only format that is mandatory format for entry of data. Further, she lets us know about the presence of specialized editors who filter and check for any kind of hacking and malicious content.
Now, if these contentions were not enough to dismiss the essayist's argument already, the speaker pulls on final string by weaking the third point. The improper priortization that has been labelled by the author, is actually dismissed by the argument that the online encyclopedias supersede the traditional ones in the matter of space and thus give equal priority to all pieces of information therby limiting none.
So, it in this regard that the speaker weakens each points of the author and in fact strengthens her own statement by mentioning the limitation of traditional encyclopedias, special reform in online form to counteract hacking risk and the humungous space of online ones.
- Bird decline 80
- In the 1950s Torreya taxifoha, a type of evergreen tree once very common in the state of Florida, started to die out. No one is sure exactly what caused the decline, but chances are good that if nothing is done, Torreya will soon become extinct. Experts a 3
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Students are more influenced by their teachers than by their friends. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. Be sure to use your own words. Do not use memorized examples. 70
- Altruism is a type of behavior in which an animal sacrifices its own interest for that of another animal or group of animals. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness; individuals performing altruistic acts gain nothing for themselves. Examples of altrui 85
- In twenty years there will be fewer cars in use than there are today. 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 143, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...l encyclopedias are still notorious and cant replace the traditional ones just yet. ...
^^^^
Line 1, column 375, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: and
...lse information, risk of malicious data and and the improper priortization of contents,...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 58, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'essayists'' or 'essayist's'?
Suggestion: essayists'; essayist's
...tentions were not enough to dismiss the essayists argument already, the speaker pulls on ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, if, second, so, still, then, third, thus, well, as to, in fact, kind of, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 30.3222958057 162% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 5.01324503311 259% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1817.0 1373.03311258 132% => OK
No of words: 347.0 270.72406181 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23631123919 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31600926901 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90695400995 2.5805825403 113% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 145.348785872 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.544668587896 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 554.4 419.366225166 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 74.6206610501 49.2860985944 151% => OK
Chars per sentence: 151.416666667 110.228320801 137% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.9166666667 21.698381199 133% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.08333333333 7.06452816374 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
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: 0.129461838892 0.272083759551 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0439851919219 0.0996497079465 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0436115951627 0.0662205650399 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.075154660916 0.162205337803 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0457454730888 0.0443174109184 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 13.3589403974 132% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 53.8541721854 80% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.26 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 63.6247240618 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.