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 non-specialists 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.
In this set of materials, the author strongly postulates that online communal encyclopedias are less valuable and less reliable than the traditional, printed encyclopedias and provides three problems to endorse its idea. In response, the professor states that online communal encyclopedias have more advantages than its drawbacks and gainsays each of the problems mentioned in the passage.
First and foremost, the passage begins by asserting that an online communal encyclopedia is lack academic credentials, having partial and false information while the traditional encyclopedias are written by experts have fewer chances of error. In contrast, the professor tells us that both online and traditional encyclopedias have errors, both are not perfect but to make an online encyclopedia error-free is easier than a traditional handwritten one.
Next, the professor in the lecture further points out that hacking can be protected by using crucial facts techniques and by using special formats, the other way to protect the data is by hiring special editors who can identify any change in original data. These claims refute the author's implication of hacking online encyclopedias and making information tempered.
Ultimately, the article wraps its arguments by explaining the third problem that online encyclopedias have more information other than the main topic which makes a researcher confused and make a false impression while traditional data is to the point. However, the speaker in the listening refutes this point by showing the weakness of the author that because traditional encyclopedia has the space issue so it has to be to the point. On the other hand, online data has a vast range and diversity of knowledge for people which is a more important advantage than disadvantages.
| 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 Always telling the truth is the most important consideration in any relationship between people Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 70
- One theory holds that the Chaco structures were purely residential with each housing hundreds of people Supporters of this theory have interpreted Chaco great houses as earlier versions of the architecture seen in more recent Southwest societies In partic 80
- Car manufacturers and governments have been eagerly seeking a replacement for the automobile s main source of power the internal combustion engine By far the most promising alternative source of energy for cars is the hydrogen based fuel cell engine which 80
- The sea otter is a small mammal that lives in waters along the western coast of North America from California to Alaska When some sea otter populations off the Alaskan coast started rapidly declining a few years ago it caused much concern because sea otte 71
- In many organizations perhaps the best way to approach certain new projects is to assemble a group of people into a team Having a team of people attack a project offers several advantages First of all a group of people has a wider range of knowledge exper 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 281, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... original data. These claims refute the authors implication of hacking online encyclope...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, so, third, while, as to, in contrast, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1515.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 277.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.46931407942 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07962216107 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03439427979 2.5805825403 118% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.537906137184 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 486.0 419.366225166 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 13.0662251656 69% => 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: 30.0 21.2450331126 141% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 48.6303771345 49.2860985944 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 168.333333333 110.228320801 153% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.7777777778 21.698381199 142% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.88888888889 7.06452816374 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => 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: 0.298804422738 0.272083759551 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.14113118532 0.0996497079465 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0721654740341 0.0662205650399 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.185618768371 0.162205337803 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0682311014015 0.0443174109184 154% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.7 13.3589403974 147% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 24.11 53.8541721854 45% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 5.55761589404 234% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.4 11.0289183223 158% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.04 12.2367328918 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.51 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 10.7273730684 144% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 10.498013245 133% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.2008830022 143% => 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.