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 anonline 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 reading states that, communal online encyclopedias provide variety of latest online resources authored by the community but it has several important problems also. The article provides three major problems of online encyclopedias in detail. However, the lecturer opposes the readings claim and provides three explanations against the problems stated.
First of all, the article says that communal online encyclopedias often lack academic credentials and sometimes inaccurate. Unlike traditional encyclopedias the communal online encyclopedias are not written by trained experts having standard academic skills. The professor refutes this with saying the communal online encyclopedias doesn't have much errors. Even if it has erros then those can be corrected very easily which was impossible with the traditional encyclopedias.
Secondly, the reading posits that unscrupulous users and hackers may fabricate, delete and corrupt information in the communal online encyclopedias which can not be tracked easily. This kind of problems was never been happened with traditional encyclopedia. The lecturer opposes this with saying that communal online encyclopedias are read-only so hackers or unscrupulous users won't be able to edit them. Additionally, special editors can be employed to protect resources from being tempered or harmed.
Finally, the article says that communal online encyclopedias focus too much in depth on trivial and popular topics, which creates false impression of what is important or not. The professor denies the claim saying that there is nothing wrong of focusing on every resources with great depth. She says the traditional encyclopedias had limited space hence they were worried about trivial facts. In communal online encyclopedias there is no limitation in space so there are variety of resources t
- 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, 78
- As early as the twelfth century A.D., the settlements of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico in the American Southwest were notable for their "great houses," massive stone buildings that contain hundreds of rooms and often stand three or four stories hig 75
- In the United States, employees typically work five days a week for eight hours each day. However, many employees want to work a four-day week and are willing to accept less pay inorder to do so. A mandatory policy requiring companies to offer their emplo 76
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Always telling the truth is the most important consideration in any relationship between people.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Life today is easier and more comfortable than it was when your grandparents were children Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 89
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 72, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'of the latest'.
Suggestion: of the latest
...al online encyclopedias provide variety of latest online resources authored by the commun...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 163, Rule ID: ALSO_SENT_END[1]
Message: 'Also' is not used at the end of the sentence. Use 'as well' instead.
Suggestion: as well
...y but it has several important problems also. The article provides three major probl...
^^^^
Line 5, column 333, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...aying the communal online encyclopedias doesnt have much errors. Even if it has erros ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 345, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
...mmunal online encyclopedias doesnt have much errors. Even if it has erros then those...
^^^^
Line 5, column 358, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[2]
Message: “Even if” 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.
... encyclopedias doesnt have much errors. Even if it has erros then those can be correcte...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 384, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this can' or 'those cans'?
Suggestion: this can; those cans
... much errors. Even if it has erros then those can be corrected very easily which was impo...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, kind of, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => 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: 1575.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 270.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.83333333333 5.08290768461 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05360046442 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97663742676 2.5805825403 115% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.551851851852 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 496.8 419.366225166 118% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.2101433299 49.2860985944 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.0 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.73333333333 7.06452816374 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.356671360561 0.272083759551 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.139757907644 0.0996497079465 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0708902973915 0.0662205650399 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.229179415958 0.162205337803 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0310331163675 0.0443174109184 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 13.3589403974 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 53.8541721854 67% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.24 12.2367328918 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.