communal online encyclopedia and traditional encyclopedias.
The article states about communal online encyclopedias which has the latest resources available on internet and states that this may provide with many benefit but is not accurate as the online platform is accessible to every ones so anyone can edit in that and is not as trustworthy as traditional encyclopedias. However lecture states many point to counteract flaws about online resources and said that this is all happening because of prejudice about online encyclopedia.
In the reading the author begins by saying that communal online encyclopedia are are not written by experts so are inaccurate and unreliable whereas traditional are written by experts and maintain standard of academic. The lecture, however, disagrees with this viewpoint. She states that no encyclopedia is perfectly accurate. What really matters is how easily and quickly the mistakes can be corrected. In this regard, online encyclopedias are better than the traditional ones, because inaccurate content in online encyclopedia cab be revised much faster.
The author also claims that because anyone can make revision to the content of online encyclopedias, unscrupulous users, vandels, and hackers can intentionally corrupt the content of articles. Again the lecture believes there are flaws in the writer's argument. The speaker holds that online encyclopedias have taken steps to protect their content from unscrupulous users, vandels, and hackers. Some important content is presented in a read only format that cannot be revised. Also, special editors now monitor changes made to articles and eliminate revision that are malicious.
Another reason why author feel this way is that communal online encyclopedias often give equal space to article on trivial topics and impression about which information is important and which is not. The professor in the listening passage is doubtfull that is accurate. She suggested that online encyclopedias contain information on all kinds of subject is not a weakness but a strength. Diversity of topics covered by online encyclopedia is a true reflection of the diversity of people interests. In contrast, traditional encyclopedia have limited space and editors who choose which entries to include do not always take diverse interests into account.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-16 | TiOluwani97 | 87 | view |
| 2023-07-18 | M. MEHRABI KERMANI | 80 | view |
| 2023-07-11 | keisham | 83 | view |
| 2023-04-05 | Dat_Nguyen | 70 | view |
| 2022-12-28 | MotherAstronaut | 85 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement It is more interesting to read a good book or see a good movie the second time than the first Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 70
- people should make decision or not 73
- 20 years cars will be used less or more 76
- today slife is more comfortable nd wasy than our hrandparents 76
- online program are better or offline program 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 147, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun benefit seems to be countable; consider using: 'many benefits'.
Suggestion: many benefits
...t and states that this may provide with many benefit but is not accurate as the online platf...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 216, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ate as the online platform is accessible to every ones so anyone can edit in that...
^^
Line 1, column 315, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ustworthy as traditional encyclopedias. However lecture states many point to counteract...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 338, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun point seems to be countable; consider using: 'many points'.
Suggestion: many points
...l encyclopedias. However lecture states many point to counteract flaws about online resour...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 78, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: are
...aying that communal online encyclopedia are are not written by experts so are inaccurat...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 244, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...lecture believes there are flaws in the writers argument. The speaker holds that online...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, may, really, so, whereas, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 10.4613686534 229% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1927.0 1373.03311258 140% => OK
No of words: 348.0 270.72406181 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.53735632184 5.08290768461 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31911543099 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95123056666 2.5805825403 114% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.520114942529 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 630.0 419.366225166 150% => 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: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.7749175312 49.2860985944 138% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.352941176 110.228320801 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4705882353 21.698381199 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.35294117647 7.06452816374 47% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 4.33554083885 208% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.478569385553 0.272083759551 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.143971539042 0.0996497079465 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.128153978988 0.0662205650399 194% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.305991205577 0.162205337803 189% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.124618702711 0.0443174109184 281% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.26 53.8541721854 64% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.5 11.0289183223 122% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.85 12.2367328918 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.98 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 63.6247240618 151% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 10.7273730684 186% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => 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.