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 reading passage states three problems of communal online encyclopedias when compared to traditional, printed ones. However, the lecturer insists that its explanation is not true.
Firstly, the lecturer states that there is no perfect encyclopedia without any errors, which means both types of encyclopedias include errors. Considering it, online encyclopedias are more beneficial as errors can be corrected easily while traditional encyclopedias might keep errors for decades. It counterargues the reading passage’s point that the communal online encyclopedias are vulnerable to errors due to their contributors’ lack of academic credentials.
Secondly, the lecturer mentions that the crucial facts are not easily corrupted. To be specific, those crucial facts are set as a read-only format so that it can maintain its reliability. Also, special editors monitor all the changes in order to prevent unscrupulous editing. It disputes the reading passage’s idea that online encyclopedia is in a risk of being corrupted.
Thirdly, the lecturer insists that diverse views of online encyclopedia is the strongest advantage of it. The traditional encyclopedia’s space is limited so the writers have to judge what is important without consideration of people’s great interest. On the other hand, online encyclopedias can include great variety with no space limitation. It contradicts the reading passage’s point that no clear sign of what is important in online encyclopedias make them less valuable.
| 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 |
- Should schools monitor students online activities 68
- In order for any work of art for example a film a novel a poem or a song to have merit it must be understandable to most people Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning f 50
- Should schools monitor students online activities 73
- The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of a large highly diversified company Ten years ago our company had two new office buildings constructed as regional headquarters for two regions The buildings were erected by different construction c 60
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you t 50
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, while, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 0.0 7.30242825607 0% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1294.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 223.0 270.72406181 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.80269058296 5.08290768461 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.86434787811 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.2965772286 2.5805825403 128% => OK
Unique words: 127.0 145.348785872 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.569506726457 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 405.9 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.7216940485 49.2860985944 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.5384615385 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1538461538 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.84615384615 7.06452816374 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => 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: 0.309822060416 0.272083759551 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.117062567722 0.0996497079465 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0791777415883 0.0662205650399 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.194667192009 0.162205337803 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0685267814225 0.0443174109184 155% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.3 53.8541721854 69% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.06 12.2367328918 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.