Encyclopedias
The presented article discusses the features of online encyclopedias. The author claims that this conception has a lot of issues relatively to traditional printed encyclopedias. However, the lecturer challenges his points one by one.
At first, the author writes that online encyclopedias are vulnerable because of possible lack of knowledges of editors and, as a consequence, may contain inaccurate information. The lecturer casts doubt on this point. He notices that there are a lot of mistakes in traditional encyclopedias too, because it is written by a small group of authors. However, online encyclopedias can potentially involve unlimited number of people to edit it. Hence, all mistakes are supposed to be eventually found and corrected, whereas in a traditional one it will stay forever.
Secondly, the author thinks that there is a trouble wih possible deliberate fabrication of information. The lecturer admits that this problem exists. But, he adds, there are number of ways invented to deal with it. For example, some information may be recognized as undisputed. The another way is to have a group of experienced editors who will be checking changes in articles and remove those having signs of misleading.
Finally, the author proves that online encyclopedias tend to promote popular but unimportant topics. The lecturer opposes it. He says that nobody can solely decide what topic is important, but traditional encyclopedias actually do exactly this. Moreover, he adds, really important topics such as, for example, historical events which are described in solid books will appear in online encyclopedias too, because it is possible to convey them.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-16 | TiOluwani97 | 87 | view |
| 2023-07-18 | M. MEHRABI KERMANI | 80 | view |
| 2023-07-11 | keisham | 83 | view |
| 2023-07-11 | keisham | 83 | view |
| 2023-07-06 | nilav | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, hence, however, may, moreover, really, second, secondly, so, whereas, as to, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 30.3222958057 96% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1414.0 1373.03311258 103% => OK
No of words: 259.0 270.72406181 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.45945945946 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01166760082 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10112407494 2.5805825403 120% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.586872586873 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 459.9 419.366225166 110% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.6031616018 49.2860985944 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.1764705882 110.228320801 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.2352941176 21.698381199 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.52941176471 7.06452816374 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.228117048942 0.272083759551 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0682721175503 0.0996497079465 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0941437696983 0.0662205650399 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132558661704 0.162205337803 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.132717507793 0.0443174109184 299% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 39.33 53.8541721854 73% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.8 12.2367328918 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.