6. Communal online encyclopedias
Author
admin
Reading (3 minutes)
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 non- specialists 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.
Listening
Texts
The communal online encyclopedia will probably never be perfect, but that’s a small price to pay for what it does offer. The criticisms in the reading are largely the result of prejudice against and ignorance about how far online encyclopedias have come.
First, errors. It’s hardly a fair criticism that encyclopedias online have errors. Traditional encyclopedias have never been close to perfectly accurate. If you are looking for a really comprehensive reference work without any mistakes, you are not going to find it, on or off line. The real point is that it’s easy for errors in factual material to be corrected in an online encyclopedia. But with the printed and bound encyclopedia, the errors remain for decades.
Second, hacking. Online encyclopedias have recognized the importance of protecting their articles from malicious hackers. One strategy they started using is to put the crucial facts in the articles that nobody disputes in a read-only format, which is a format that no one can make changes to. That way you are making sure that the crucial facts in the articles are reliable. Another strategy that’s being used is to have special editors whose job is to monitor all changes made to the articles and eliminate those changes that are clearly malicious.
Third, what’s worth knowing about? The problem for traditional encyclopedias is that they have limited space, so they have to decide what’s important and what’s not. And in practice, the judgments of the group of academics that make these decisions don’t reflect the great range of interests that people really have. But space is definitely not an issue for online encyclopedias. The academic articles are still represented in online encyclopedias, but there can be a great variety of articles and topics that accurately reflect the great diversity of users’ interests. The diversity of use in topics that online encyclopedias offer is one of their strongest advantages.
Explanation
Reading part summary
The claim in the reading passage
The communal online encyclopedias have several critical problems and are less valuable than traditional, printed encyclopedias.
The first reason
First, compared to traditional encyclopedias written by experts, the inaccuracy of a communal online encyclopedia is a huge problem because the contributors are not reliable in terms of expertise.
The second reason
Second, unlike a traditional encyclopedia, various people, including hackers or unscrupulous users, can alter the original information, which can be fabricated or corrupted.
The third reason
Third, when it comes to topics they deal with, the communal online encyclopedias focus mainly on trivial and popular topics and this can provide people with a false impression about what is important.
Listening part summary
The argument against the reading passage
The arguments mentioned in the reading passage are based on prejudice and ignorance about online encyclopedias.
The first reason
First, as far as error is concerned, unlike online encyclopedias, it is hard to correct incorrect information in traditional encyclopedias because they are already printed. It is, however, easier for errors in factual material to be corrected in an online encyclopedia.
The second reason
Second, online encyclopedias have some strategies to prevent their articles from being changed with some malicious intention such as a read-only format and special editors who monitor all changes.
The third reason
Third, traditional encyclopedias have an issue of limited space, so they have to decide what to include and what to omit. On the other hand, online encyclopedias don’t have this kind of problem and contain more information that users may be interested in.
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 non- specialists 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.
Listening
Texts
The communal online encyclopedia will probably never be perfect, but that’s a small price to pay for what it does offer. The criticisms in the reading are largely the result of prejudice against and ignorance about how far online encyclopedias have come.
First, errors. It’s hardly a fair criticism that encyclopedias online have errors. Traditional encyclopedias have never been close to perfectly accurate. If you are looking for a really comprehensive reference work without any mistakes, you are not going to find it, on or off line. The real point is that it’s easy for errors in factual material to be corrected in an online encyclopedia. But with the printed and bound encyclopedia, the errors remain for decades.
Second, hacking. Online encyclopedias have recognized the importance of protecting their articles from malicious hackers. One strategy they started using is to put the crucial facts in the articles that nobody disputes in a read-only format, which is a format that no one can make changes to. That way you are making sure that the crucial facts in the articles are reliable. Another strategy that’s being used is to have special editors whose job is to monitor all changes made to the articles and eliminate those changes that are clearly malicious.
Third, what’s worth knowing about? The problem for traditional encyclopedias is that they have limited space, so they have to decide what’s important and what’s not. And in practice, the judgments of the group of academics that make these decisions don’t reflect the great range of interests that people really have. But space is definitely not an issue for online encyclopedias. The academic articles are still represented in online encyclopedias, but there can be a great variety of articles and topics that accurately reflect the great diversity of users’ interests. The diversity of use in topics that online encyclopedias offer is one of their strongest advantages.
Explanation
Reading part summary
The claim in the reading passage
The communal online encyclopedias have several critical problems and are less valuable than traditional, printed encyclopedias.
The first reason
First, compared to traditional encyclopedias written by experts, the inaccuracy of a communal online encyclopedia is a huge problem because the contributors are not reliable in terms of expertise.
The second reason
Second, unlike a traditional encyclopedia, various people, including hackers or unscrupulous users, can alter the original information, which can be fabricated or corrupted.
The third reason
Third, when it comes to topics they deal with, the communal online encyclopedias focus mainly on trivial and popular topics and this can provide people with a false impression about what is important.
Listening part summary
The argument against the reading passage
The arguments mentioned in the reading passage are based on prejudice and ignorance about online encyclopedias.
The first reason
First, as far as error is concerned, unlike online encyclopedias, it is hard to correct incorrect information in traditional encyclopedias because they are already printed. It is, however, easier for errors in factual material to be corrected in an online encyclopedia.
The second reason
Second, online encyclopedias have some strategies to prevent their articles from being changed with some malicious intention such as a read-only format and special editors who monitor all changes.
The third reason
Third, traditional encyclopedias have an issue of limited space, so they have to decide what to include and what to omit. On the other hand, online encyclopedias don’t have this kind of problem and contain more information that users may be interested in.