Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they cast doubt on specific points made in the reading passage.

The reading and the lecture are both about communal online encyclopedias and traditional encyclopedias. While the author of the article argues that traditional encyclopedias are better than communal online encyclopedias, the lecturer disputes the claims mentioned in the article. Her position is that communal online articles are better in many ways compared to traditional encyclopedias.  According to the study, the communal online encyclopedia has a lack of good quality writers. The article mentions that the traditional encyclopedia was a good quality writer with sufficient credentials to contribute. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. She claims that in online encyclopedias we have the room to attract more and more contributors in a wide range of fields. Additionally, she points out that even if there is a sense of error, we can edit it easily, which is not a big issue.  Secondly, the author suggests that there's a high chance that hackers could get into the site and manipulate its contents. According to the article, the original text can be tempered, and the traditional encyclopedia is ahead in this regard. The lecturer, however, asserts that we could easily invest in hacker protection to avoid these scenarios. He goes on to say that preventing hacking has been one of the top priorities these days for most communal online encyclopedias. Finally, the author puts forth the idea that communal encyclopedias are quite broad and often filled with unnecessary information. The author contends that traditional encyclopedias are pretty much selective in this regard. In contrast, the lecturer's stance is that a communal online encyclopedia has enough space to make it filled with quality content, which is why it doesn't concern itself with cutting information. He notes that the diversity of focus is what is important in the communal online encyclopedia.