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 article discusses a fascination topic pertaining to usage of online encyclopaedia with respect to traditional encyclopaedia and provides three reasons of disagreement. However, the professor explains that online encyclopaedia is the future and opposes each of the author’s reasons.
First, the reading passage discusses that the online encyclopaedia are more prone to error and the source of information is not validated and authenticated. In contrast, the edits can be easily done in encyclopaedia as opposed to traditional one’s. As a result, we can safely assume that it is not possible to get perfect content but if requires changes then can be done quickly in online medium.
Second, the article says that online encyclopaedias are vulnerable to hack and can change factual data. However, the professor refutes this by enabling protection to read only mode in online medium. And hence, it is now less vulnerable to attack.
Finally, the articles posits that online encyclopaedia have detailed information which become difficult to grasp the main point. The professor refute this point by explaining that with online medium it is possible to have diverse range of topics as space is abundant.
With all the above points, it can be conclude that the article fails to justify the claims towards online encyclopaedia.
- Being occasionally dishonest is a good way to maintain relationships with friends and loved ones. 50
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition. 50
- 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, 83
- According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies a 50
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 144, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'refutes'.
Suggestion: refutes
... to grasp the main point. The professor refute this point by explaining that with onli...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, however, if, second, so, then, in contrast, as a result, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1136.0 1373.03311258 83% => OK
No of words: 209.0 270.72406181 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.43540669856 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.80221413058 4.04702891845 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09968830383 2.5805825403 120% => OK
Unique words: 117.0 145.348785872 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.55980861244 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 369.0 419.366225166 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.55342163355 116% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => 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: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.8739138965 49.2860985944 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.272727273 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.09090909091 7.06452816374 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.167194731957 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0713980884867 0.0996497079465 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0319399583806 0.0662205650399 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103487019582 0.162205337803 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0139789433229 0.0443174109184 32% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => 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: 9.19 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 10.7273730684 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.