Essay on Cosmopolitanism and People

When students are doing research on the internet, Wikipedia is usually one of the first site to appear. For students, the site is usually tempting to click, but they are quickly reminded by their teachers that Wikipedia should not be used as a site of knowledge. They label the site as inaccurate, unreliable, and uncreditable. In Boyd’s article she writes that teachers consistently tell students to stay clear of Wikipedia at all cost. Students should not have to see the site as tempting. They should be allowed to use it and embrace the site. Wikipedia has so much educational potential and should not be ignored by teachers. Boyd also writes that some analyses have shown that Wikipedia’s content is just as creditable as, if not more reliable than, more traditional resources.

Is Wikipedia credible or not credible? Wikipedia is commonly known for anyone to publish their own opinions and it may not be very reliable. However, Wikipedia can seem useful but with the info not being credible can mess up the students research if they only use Wikipedia. Casper Grathwohl thinks the opposite though based on his article “Wikipedia Comes of Age” a chronicle of the higher education. He states that students are using it as a pre information guide before they do further research. Students should use it as a personal information guide. This article makes some good points in mentioning such as research studies, and how Wikipedia should be used as a formal research tool. This type of argument is determined as a classical argument. This would be very helpful in books explaining why Wikipedia should be a formal research tool for students. This explains that anyone can use it to get brief knowledge but should rely on other and more reliable sources. The article “Wikipedia Comes of age” by Casper Grathwohl should be in a textbook because, he states how it can help with information on the topic you are researching but not to use it as a reliable one and only source.

The Internet is an uncensored place, where knowledge flows freely, and uninterrupted. The site en.wikipedia.org, is an online wikipedia freely editable by anyone. Therefore, ideas and knowledge can be exchanged freely, if they are accurate, that is another question. Since it is editable by anyone, information can be false, but in most cases, the information found there is highly accurate and updated frequently. You can find knowledge on a range of topics, from WW2, to Philosophy, even to the Bolshevik Uprising. This is an example of what can happen when the free exchange of ideas and knowledge, is both not limited, and uncensored. “There must be something in books, something we can’t imagine, to make a woman stay in a burning house; there must be something there. You don’t stay for nothing.”(Bradbury, 1953) This quote from Montag relates to a world where knowledge isn’t limited. He ponders why a woman, would stay in a burning house, just for her books, just for the potential knowledge in them.

In this paper I will be discussing the debate between pro Wikipedia’s Dwight Reed, and Rachel R. Wright, and con Wikipedia’s Nicole Irwin, Michelle Douglas, and Ivy Leigh. During the debate between Learning Team B members we debated over different points of views regarding Wikipedia as a reliable source.

succeed which was astonishing regarding the history of enslaving the minority group. The cosmopolitan domestic policy would appeal to Web Dubious because the ideology, “Demand for integration a genuine integrity, a wholeness and soundness of enthusiasm and purpose which can only come when no national colony within our America feels that it is being discriminated against or that its cultural case is being prejudged” (Bourne, 13). The argument is immediately dispelling the Anglo-Saxon imperial mindset by knocking down the eurocentric hierarchy. The preferential treatment that develops from the race chain of command does not allow African-Americans to advance socioeconomically at all or at a slower rate than europeans economic mobility. The policy is advocating for geniune involvement of all ethnic group in

The number one major criticism of Wikipedia is that it is not a creditable source of information. Wikipedia allows for laypersons, in addition to their staff editors, to contribute to the information within the websites database. While the contributors may very well be reliable their identity is often unknown; leaving the researcher unable to verify their contribution and sort out any personal bias from the writer. Wikipedia’s own website states that its not creditable because “anyone can edit the information given at any time, and although most errors are immediately fixed, some errors maintain unnoticed.” (Wikipedia: DGG, 2007)

Both writers are instructors in higher education settings, and are agreeable in the fact that Wikipedia has become successful as an online anonymous open-source encyclopedia containing over 1.6 million entries. They further share agreement that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of good factual quality information due to the nature of its assembly. This is where Wilson and Waters begin their independent views and opposing arguments about solutions for correcting and making Wikipedia a more viable and reliable source of information.

Kwame Anthony Appiah is a philosopher who deserves great recognition in this age. After earning his Ph.D at Cambridge University he went on to teach at many Ivy League schools. He wrote the book Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers which touches on many of the controversial topics of our present time and connects them to past problems that now seem to have a clear solution. Appiah 's discussions of various topics point out many of the difficulties faced by the HIV/AIDS victims, who are gone into more detail by Helen Epstein, author of "AIDS, Inc.," and the ordeals that women have been put through in order to escape the gruesome rituals that have been required for their marriage.

Seigenthaler explains to his readers why websites such as Wikipedia, Answers.com, and Reference.com are unreliable sources for information. He also wants to raise the awareness of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is designed for individuals to post information whether it is accurate or false. People don’t need any expertise or knowledge to post any kind of information. The author also thinks that some individuals may post false information out of malice. He adopts an angry and frustrated tone in his entire article. This can be seen in his use of the words “sick mind,” “mind-blogging,” “toxic sentences,” “poison- pen intellects,” “irresponsible.” Seigenthaler assumes his readers are unaware of Wikipedia is an unreliable source. In order to appeal

Wikipedia the site where users are able to change the work made by authors is not a credible source.Wikipedia does not have a way to make sure the information users seek is fact or fiction due to the fact that it does not have any security measures to prevent users from making unauthorized changes to information, which makes it unreliable for research.Wikipedia should not belong in the college classroom for doing research and should be banned from the classroom for having false information.The site wikipedia is not an adequate source for students due to the liability of misleading information.

I recently read an article written by Neil L Waters called “Why You Can’t Cite Wikipedia in My Class”. The comment that Neil Waters made about how Wikipedia may lead to a citable source, is reason enough to use Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is a website that can help with writing a paper and not hinder it. For example, when you are looking for information on Wikipedia it bluntly tells the reader that Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia which will allow anyone to edit or submit an article. Wikipedia is the largest and most known websites to obtain a reference from. Due to the fact that anyone can add what they assume is important makes the website credibility questionable. This is why most professors do not allow it as a reference when writing a paper. Neil wrote an article about why students were not allowed to use Wikipedia in his class. He stated his students are responsible for the accuracy of information they provide, and they cannot point to Wikipedia or any similar source that may appear in the future to escape the consequences of errors. He even went on the further explain that Wikipedia is not an acceptable citation, even though it may lead one to a suitable

Wikipedia has been the subject of considerable debate for some time now. Some think the site is not quotable, while others argue that it is. Many teachers do not accept Wikipedia pages as a source of information, because anybody can add information to such pages. However, this policy of everybody being able to add has changed, and the present-day Wikipedia team works hard to prevent inaccuracies on their website. Wikipedia pages nowadays indicate the sources of information. Moreover, Wikipedia pages are checked on inaccuracies. Furthermore, Wikipedia is more up-to-date than any encyclopaedia in book form. Additionally, Wikipedia covers more topics than a regular encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is therefore a useful source of information.

Considerable variations of cosmopolitanism demonstrate its contextualisation throughout long historical periods. Development of cosmopolitanism in different socio-cultural condition and political settings and its dialectical relations with other perspectives contribute to different emphasises of cosmopolitanism though they retain its main principles. I think the variation of cosmopolitanism needs to be understood as a basis of understanding and comparison to address related issues. Although this thesis emphasizes on political cosmopolitanism and cosmopolitanism as a critical social theory, I discuss other variations and aspects of cosmopolitanism in this section due to inevitable connections and overlaps among them due to their shared principles

The Internet has significantly transformed the world we live in today. The question on whether or not the internet is good continues to raise a heated debate. Whereas some claim that the growth in internet use is for the better of the society, others claim it is for the worse. However, it has turned the world into a global village. Bill Gates once said that "The internet is becoming the town square for the global village of tomorrow." If the world lacks a digital future, the issue is what the speaker will have to sacrifice for them to be heard in this ‘digital town square.' The controversy arises when one looks at the quote from the language lens and this important particularly for the young generation. Nevertheless, it is evident that bridging the digital divide will promote exchanges and ultimately empower individuals and therefore the growth in internet use is a good thing.

Is a multicultural society good for the world and for different countries? Does multiculturalism renewal different countries, or does it make their own basic national culture disappear? Should the government support multiculturalism? There are many different views around those questions. There are also many other questions about multiculturalism, which are up in the light today.