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 and the lecture are both about Communal online encyclopedias. The author of the reading thinks that online encyclopedias are less advantageous and valuable compared to the traditional printed encyclopedias. But the lecturer challenges the claims made in the article. She believes that online encyclopedias are more convenient in many aspects and they are more advantageous than the traditional printed ones.
Firstly, the author of the reading mentions that the writers of the online encyclopedias lack academic knowledge and thus they may add inaccurate information whereas the writers of the traditional encyclopedias were academically sound. The lecturer, however, does not agree with the author. She says that the traditional encyclopedias were never accurate. Moreover, she adds that even if the online encyclopedias are incorrect, it is very easy to correct the errors. But, on the contrary, it is not that easy to correct the errors of a printed encyclopedia.
Secondly, The writer of the article opines that the online encyclopedias are susceptible to the attack of hackers or other unscrupulous people who can fabricate, change or delete the content of the manuscripts. The lecturer rebuts this argument of the author. She indicates that to protect the manuscripts from these type of malicious people, the authority has made the articles of the online encyclopedias read-only where people can only read them but can not change the content of the articles. Moreover, there are special editors who always check the changes made in the articles. If they find anything unwanted, they eliminate them from the encyclopedias.
Finally, the author argues that the online encyclopedias often host trivial topics rather than hosting important topics. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that the online articles can host a variety of articles. She puts forth the idea that the online articles these days can facilitate to publish about many diverse topics and this characteristic of the online encyclopedias make them more advantageous than the printed encyclopedias.
- TOEFL integrated writing: Dutch painter Rembrandt 3
- "The rating system for electronic games is similar to the movie rating system in that it provides consumers with a quick reference so that they can determine if the subject matter and contents are appropriate. This electronic game rating system is not wor 75
- TOEFL integrated writing: Dutch painter Rambrandt 3
- A recent study indicates that children living in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal have lower levels of tooth decay than children living in suburban areas in the United States, despite the fact that people in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal re 49
- Driverless cars 60
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, thus, whereas, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => 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: 1769.0 1373.03311258 129% => OK
No of words: 323.0 270.72406181 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.47678018576 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23936324884 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07369381527 2.5805825403 119% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.46439628483 0.540411800872 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 570.6 419.366225166 136% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => 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: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.0302696584 49.2860985944 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.058823529 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.58823529412 7.06452816374 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.327880292841 0.272083759551 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111981432301 0.0996497079465 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0760681450389 0.0662205650399 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.22016971575 0.162205337803 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0524929000121 0.0443174109184 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => 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: 14.5 12.2367328918 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => 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: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.