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 cast doubts on communal online encyclopedias while the lecture deems that traditional encyclopedias are not better than online encyclopedias and the online encyclopedias only need to pay a small price to get.
First, the reading debuts that online encyclopedias include many mistakes and the traditional encyclopedias are formed by trained experts which are more trustworthy. Instead, the lecture mentions there is no such encyclopedia contains no error. Online encyclopedias have the data remained for decades and can be obtain easier than traditional encyclopedias.
The insecurity is another point put forward by the reading. Hackers, vandals, and any other people can fabricate or destroy the online information without permission. Albeit the online encyclopedias are open to the public, the special editors and read-only format type can protect the online encyclopedias from being changed or deleted proposed by the lecture.
Lastly, the reading claims that the online encyclopedias can cause false impression and the importance cannot be point out . Nonetheless, the lecture rebuts it. Since the limited space can constrain the traditional encyclopedias, there must be have the main points in those data. Without any boundaries, online encyclopedias can reach to an expansive range of diversity.
| 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 |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement It is better to have broad knowledge of many academic subjects than to specialize in one specific subject Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 67
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Governments should spend more money in support of the arts than in support of athletics such as state sponsored Olympic teams Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 60
- The reading offers an idea that the world wood businesses are focusing on ecocertification label instead of the American wood industry The lecture holds different opinions on the contrary Albeit the reading claims that the American consumers do not trust 76
- It is no longer for a society to regard a man or a woman as a hero 50
- The cane toad is a large 1 8kg 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 multiplied r 76
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 326, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ned for decades and can be obtain easier than traditional encyclopedias. The i...
^^
Line 7, column 123, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...n and the importance cannot be point out . Nonetheless, the lecture rebuts it. Sin...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, lastly, nonetheless, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 12.0772626932 33% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 5.0 22.412803532 22% => OK
Preposition: 15.0 30.3222958057 49% => More preposition wanted.
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: 1126.0 1373.03311258 82% => OK
No of words: 196.0 270.72406181 72% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.74489795918 5.08290768461 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.74165738677 4.04702891845 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16751269036 2.5805825403 123% => OK
Unique words: 119.0 145.348785872 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.607142857143 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 361.8 419.366225166 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.2542630118 49.2860985944 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.363636364 110.228320801 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8181818182 21.698381199 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.45454545455 7.06452816374 49% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
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: 0.360569688203 0.272083759551 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.140170669416 0.0996497079465 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.110531398256 0.0662205650399 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.25666833876 0.162205337803 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0775951463938 0.0443174109184 175% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.3 53.8541721854 69% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 5.55761589404 202% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.72 12.2367328918 128% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.83 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 63.6247240618 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.