I HATE HIPPIES

-->

Since when did Globalization become the devil? Progression and evolution is all of a sudden a curse and everyone seems to think that universal culture merely eliminates indigenous culture.

It’s not cultural imperialism you neo-liberal bigots. You all annoy me.

It’s called development.

McDonald’s is great. Everyone needs to admit it. The spread of good fast food internationally is not the only positive of an emerging culture. I mean there’s still Starbucks to be thankful for, with caffeine being the sweet nectar of every nine to fiver, including the people who criticize it.

There are a number of other positives too, of course. One has to consider the possibility that the disappearance of indigenous culture is a natural occurance; that the whole idea of McWorldianism is brush out what is backward, what is no longer functional, and instead replace bazookas and hymns with pretty lights and conveyor belts.

Unity is strength and of course sharing is caring. Globalization increases resource availability. With more international ties between countries and Multinational Corporations, the trading and spread of resources has resulted in benefits for the consumer who are now able to obtain assets that were once unique to particular countries. This is evident even in history like China’s silk road. Their trading resulted in a strong economy, foreign goods, international alliances and ultimately a stronger kingdom. Now imagine the silk road on anabolic steroids and you’ll find that not only do individual countries and their citizens benefit, but the world as a global nation does too.

Globalization reduces poverty too. Growing international ties are allowing companies to outsource employment granting employment opportunities to those who suffer economically. And I’m not talking telecom call centers with Indian employees, but also menial work, managerial positions, factory work and other forms of labour in the production process. Poorer countries often have ore opportunity for industrialization and the construction of infrastructure, which in turn would also provide a number of other employment options. After all, a low-paying job is better than full-blown poverty

Hey guess what Globalization also does? It makes people S-M-R-T through edumacation. Again this is a prime example of western culture benefiting the disadvantaged. The diffusion of knowledge reduces the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Knowledge is power as they say. And as a nation develops, the need for specialization and educated individuals increases which in turns results in more education facilities and the spread of information. Being literate is great, but being able to do something with it is even better.

Now this is the point in the argument where the neo-liberalist psychos reinforce their idea that “ermagawd but indigenous culturez r b3ing erased”, well ask yourself this hippy, some indigenous cultures also condone violence and the violation os basic human rights (like broadband internet as declared by the UN).

Globalization leads to the awareness and protection of human rights. As a nation develops, the international crosshair is aimed at a nation’s bullseye. This global firearm of justice and peace causes reigning regimes to essentially falter under pressure and succumb to the scrutiny, resulting in a rework and rethinking of backward (dare I say indigenous hahahahahahahaaha) policies to allow basic rights and freedoms for their citizens (no time for examples but see: China, Iraq and basically like, all of Africa).

There are a plethora of other examples that I can cite that reinforces the positives of Globalization including:

*Improvement of technology and transporation

*The movement of people and capital

AAAAAND…

*Dissipation of cultural violence and tension

You’ll also notice I did not cite or link any other websites or blogs in this post…this is because the benefits of Globaliztion are part of common sense… collective knowedge. It is clear to see That we should not criticize the big mac, but rather firmly grasp it between our fingers and take a big chunk out of the meat patty of unity.

It’s either that or be left behind.

Beyoncepedia.

I freaking love Wikipedia. Like legitimately.  If I had a dollar for every the ol’ wiki has saved my ass from a fail grade I would have like ten thousand dollars. Maybe even more. It epitomizes what the internet is: a humungus user-generated database, free of charge, spreading knowledge and information to everyone who chooses to access it.

And it’s not even a matter of just copying and pasting information into a paper. Wikipedia has actually HELPED me to understand what the flying cockatoo is going on, say for example, when a reading is too dense (cough, Herodotus…) and I just want the jist of what some old fart wrote.

But seriously, if Wikipedia were ever to be personified into a woman, Wiki would be the spitting image of a “Déjà vu”, “Irreplaceable” era Beyonce (circa 2006, hot damn).

Having said that though, it seems a lot of educators don’t share my love for Beyoncepedia, or research dependent on the internet for that matter. The times have changed, professor. Face the facts: the internet is a powerful tool that can, no, MUST be utilized by students to further their education.

The internet is our generation’s printing press, and hardcover elitists can step over “to the left” (brownie points are up for grabs if you caught that one guys.)

For the purpose of this post, I’m just going to assume that everyone agrees and move on to a more pressing matter. The problem is no longer “can the internet be trusted as a source” but rather it is now a matter of “what on the internet can I trust, and what on the internet do I dismiss?”

Is there a criteria? A check list? A rubrick which determines whether or not a webpage is spouting legitimate information or is the work of a 28 year old who lives in his mum’s basement.

Instead of using the internet as an example, lets take a small case study to provide an illustration.

Lets use Wikipedia.

Wikipedia states that Wikipedia:

“In a departure from the style of traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia is largely open. This means that, except for particularly sensitive and/or vandalism-prone pages, which are "protected" from some degree of editing, the reader of an article can edit the text as he or she sees fit, anonymously or with a user account... No article should be owned by its creator or any other editor, nor vetted by any recognized authority. Instead, editors should agree on the content and structure of articles by consensus”

Consensus. Popular opinion. So what if the general consensus is wrong? This quickly, exponentially becomes a post-modernist argument then. All of a sudden the line between fact and fiction is blurred. All of a sudden history is now an open book, constantly re-written and edited to suit the perspective of the people. 

One would argue this automatically dismissed the validity and reliability of Wikipedia (remember, the Internet) which would be enough grounds for professor’s to discourage, even ban in some cases the use of Wikipedia as a source for research assignments. But again, I would argue that this cannot be so.

For a professor to tell a student he can’t use Wikipedia is like telling a mechanic he can’t use a power drill because it runs out of battery.

…That’s not a very good image but the point im making is that a student should be able to have the power of choice when deciding what tools and resources to use despite perceived flaws in the said tool or resource.

Not only this, but there are number of other reasons why we should trust Wikipedia.

If you think about it, the whole open editing thing is a double edged sword. It may act as a deterrent to the truth due to inaccuracy or differing opinion, but it can also be thought of as the most comprehensive peer reviewed body of information. If a discrepancy is found, a more qualified editor can come along and change it. If wrong information is posted, it can be merely deleted and replaced with the correct information by someone who knows what they’re talking about. Not only this, but every major claim on EVERY Wikipedia article is cited and a direct link to the source is found at the bottom of the page.

Unlike books, which can be outdated over the span of 365 days, Wikipedia is able to keep up to date with the times, which means it presents the LATEST information, as its discovered or is unveiled which means it doesn’t age and its information will always be applicable.

Furthermore, WIkipedia has implemented its only rules for moderation when it comes to the validity of articles. Wikipedia states the following are a good way for judging the reliability of an article

·       Appropriateness of the images provided with the article

·       Appropriateness of the style and focus of the articles

·       Susceptibility to, and exclusion and removal of, false information

·       Comprehensiveness, scope and coverage within articles and in the range of articles

·       Identification of reputable third-party sources as citations

·       Stability of the articles

·       Susceptibility to editorial and systemic bias

·       Quality of writing

Oh, there’s that checklist that we were looking for !

So what’s my point? Well the point is information technology is changing  the way students are learning and writing. Professor’s do not necessarily have to alter their pedagogy and adopt a fully progressive philosophy. I’d be happy if more Professor’s would just recognize the merit of the open source that is Wikipedia, or as a whole, the Internet. It provides more merits than negatives and information, knowledge, is power. Students are in charge of their education. Not the professor.

And deciding to skip the 100 page Thucydides reading and choosing rather to read the synopsis on Wikipedia is perfectly fine.