The article introduces the topic of communal encyclopedias. The writer says that these encyclopedias are online and have latest resources for various subjects on the internet. Here, a reader can not only consume the content, but can also contribute and make changes. The author states that this format of encyclopedias has many problems and therefore offline traditional encyclopedias are superior. The lecturer disagrees. He is of the opinion that communal encyclopedias are much better than the traditional ones and attacks each of the arguments made by the writer.
Firstly, the article states that the contributors to communal encyclopedias lack academic credentials and therefore can add on inaccurate information to these resources. He elaborates by saying that since they are not trained experts, these online encyclopedias will have a multitude of errors. The lecturer disagrees. He points out that online resources offer far more than traditional ones, and that even the old- format encyclopedias have various errors. In fact, atleast the errors on the communal encyclopedias can be modified and corrected, unlike the physical ones that cannot be changed for years.
Secondly, according to the article, hackers and unscrupulous users have a chance to fabricate, delete or make changes to the material of the communal encyclopedias, and there is no method of knowing that the information has been tampered with. However, the professor rebuts this by stating that nowadays there are different strategies to control this concern. To mitigate such inappropriate actions, essential information of articles is kept in a ‘read only’ mode which cannot be edited. Furthermore, special editors are hired to keep an eye on changes that are being made, and delete any bad additions. He also adds that these precautions help enhance the reliability of the communal encyclopedias.
Lastly, the article mentions that these communal encyclopedias, due to their online mode, focus greatly on trivial topics that are trending or popular. He elaborates on the magnitude of this problem by giving an instance of a child researching for a school project, who is presented with equal material on crucial historical events and popular TV shows. He therefore believes that traditional encyclopedias know better as to what content must be included. On the contrary, the lecturer argues that online formats do not have any space limitations, and consequently are better equipped to include information on a variety of topics to cater to the diverse interests of the users.
In conclusion, it is clear that the author and the lecturer hold very different views on communal encyclopedias.
- Sports stars and movie stars have an obligation to behave as role models for the young people who look up to them In return for the millions of dollars that they are paid we should expect them to fulfill this societal responsibility 75
- 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 how 83
- Those who see their ideas through regardless of doubts or criticism others may express are the ones who tend to leave a lasting legacy 70
- Science and technology will one day be able to solve all of society s problems Write a response to the prompt in which you discuss whether or not you agree or disagree Be certain to fully develop your position and carefully consider ways in which your 83
- Some people believe that increasing violence in the media is the cause of increasing violence in our society especially among children Others believe that children s peer groups and parental role models are a much more powerful influence on children s beh 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 117, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'have the latest'.
Suggestion: have the latest
...that these encyclopedias are online and have latest resources for various subjects on the i...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...to the diverse interests of the users. In conclusion, it is clear that the auth...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, therefore, as to, in conclusion, in fact, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 7.30242825607 219% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 19.0 12.0772626932 157% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 22.412803532 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 47.0 30.3222958057 155% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2269.0 1373.03311258 165% => OK
No of words: 417.0 270.72406181 154% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.4412470024 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5189133491 4.04702891845 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07707409794 2.5805825403 119% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 145.348785872 148% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.515587529976 0.540411800872 95% => OK
syllable_count: 732.6 419.366225166 175% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 13.0662251656 161% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.9464334973 49.2860985944 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.047619048 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8571428571 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.33333333333 7.06452816374 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.34143439482 0.272083759551 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.09911846558 0.0996497079465 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100062296935 0.0662205650399 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.186782359578 0.162205337803 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.13933478848 0.0443174109184 314% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 53.8541721854 65% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.0289183223 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.2 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 63.6247240618 192% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.