Posted by
Andrews on Thursday, June 12, 2008 3:04:01 PM
I haven't written about my problems with
Wikipedia in some time, so I suppose I am about due for an essay. This time it is the interesting insertion of opinion as fact. Worse still it is an opinion relating to an area where the science simply is far too unsettled. From
an article on a specific mesolithic culture:
More significant is evidence of cannibalism at Dyrholmen, Jutland, and Møllegabet on Ærø. There human bones were broken open to obtain the marrow. As cannibalism
is not practiced to obtain food, the next most likely explanation is
that the warlike Ertebølle population ritually devoured its enemies in
order to ingest their powers.
The problem here is twofold.
First, even if we grant that cannibalism is not normally practiced as a regular part of the diet, that says nothing about these bones. If a future anthropologist found the bones of the Donner party, would he be justified in thinking that pioneers practiced ritual consumption to gain the powers of others? Is it not possible in these specific finds that people were, for some reason, unable to obtain food and practiced cannibalism out of necessity?
Second, the statement itself is nowhere near as certain as the presentation would suggest. I recall back in my college days there were those who tried to argue that cannibalism simply did not exist as a cultural practice. Apparently the sheer weight of evidence has finally ended that effort. Still, the statement above, sounding quite a lot like a recitation of a dogmatic belief, that cannibalism is always a ritual practice and never for food, is simply not supported by evidence.
Look at the animal kingdom, many animals use cannibalism to supplement their diets. Why would primitive man be any different? If he could not capture a deer or horse to eat, but he did kill a rival, why would he not eat his rival? Why does any consumption of a fellow human have to be based on some ritual?
It seems to me this is the "there are no cannibals" argument tarted up in a new guise. Now it is "well, there is cannibalism, but it is always a ritual". Again, the effort, as in the denial of any cannibalism, seems to be to be to elevate primitive man, reduce his more barbaric practices.It is not coincidental that those who once pushed the "no cannibalism" line were also those most likely to denigrate modern society and elevate the primitives. This effort to downplay the barbarism of early and primitive man is just one aspect of the glorification of the "noble savage".
But I want to write about that Rousseau-inspired idiocy at greater length in another essay, so enough of that. My point here is quite different.
This is yet another perfect example of the weakness of Wikipedia. Someone less familiar with the debates over cannibalism, or less diligent about checking what is sourced and not sourced, could easily read that line and absorb the "fact" that cannibalism is always a ritual practice. Rather than thinking they have read the biased statement of one person, the "authority" of wikipedia makes them think it is a fact.
Not that no opinion or errors ever made it into traditional encyclopedias, but at least there the author's name was known, and if he made an unsupported statement his fellows called him on it and the encyclopedia generally modified their next edition. It was impossible to slip anonymous statements into a work. Wikipedia, being both anonymous and infinitely malleable makes it far too easy for every opinionated individual to slip their pet beliefs into a supposedly authoritative essay.
POSTSCRIPT
I have written before at greater length about wikipedia. You can read my earlier thoughts in the following essays:
Stop Confusing Me With The Facts!
Mystery Quotes
Wikipedia?
The Failure of Wikipedia
Eventually I will consolidate all of these into one comprehensive essay enumerating all my complaints, but for now the list is short enough that it doesn't seem to be worth the effort.