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.
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.
| 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 At universities and colleges sports and social activities are just as important as classes and libraries and should receive equal financial support Use specific reasons and examples to support your ans 60
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Television advertising directed towards young children aged two to five should not be allowed Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 68
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement It is more important for students to understand ideas and concepts than it is for them to learn facts Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 60
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement At universities and colleges sports and social activities are just as important as classes and libraries and should receive equal financial support Use specific reasons and examples to support your ans 60
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Playing computer games is a waste of time Children should not be allowed to play them Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 68
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, really, second, so, third, as a result, in many cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1666.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 293.0 270.72406181 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.68600682594 5.08290768461 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13729897018 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.37285987917 2.5805825403 131% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.60409556314 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 546.3 419.366225166 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.9 1.55342163355 122% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.6909039678 49.2860985944 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.153846154 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5384615385 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.38461538462 7.06452816374 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.567325250285 0.272083759551 209% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.212334841651 0.0996497079465 213% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.156344091191 0.0662205650399 236% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.318290858426 0.162205337803 196% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.164353333156 0.0443174109184 371% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 13.3589403974 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 23.77 53.8541721854 44% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 13.0 5.55761589404 234% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 11.0289183223 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.02 12.2367328918 131% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.74 8.42419426049 116% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 63.6247240618 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.