Begin semi-rant, apologies to all...
PEOPLE!!! Why are we wasting time on this? First, somebody thought Weismann was important enough to warrant an article. Why not ask the person who added him? Alternatively, one could look on google. The information there pretty much shows that Weismann is a close colleague (and maybe sycophant) of Adler. Adler IS important, whether or not one agrees with his philosophy. He's influential -- a large part of a generation of American pedagogy has been influenced by his ideas -- not just the Great Books/Great Ideas thing, but also, if I'm not mistaken, New Math. Weismann seems to be fairly influential in peddling off the Great Ideas thing into home-schooling -- a major trend in the US these days.
Wikipedia isn't paper. Helga puts up insane articles about obscure (hired famous German painter X) city council members in Hansa cities in the 17th century, and we keep them (despite wanting to nuke most of them)... Dan, why is this an issue?
Unless there is a huge demand to police relevancy, shouldn't people be more worried about making sure information is first accurate, and then NPOV? As much as I'd like to see articles weeded out (like every effing chapter of Atlas Shrugged), I don't go all sysop and delete at will, nor have I blocked any of the people I consider intellectual vandals or liars....or just stupid cows... DESPITE GREAT TEMPTATION.
So, could we perhaps work on being a kinder, gentler, less punitive wikipedia? Rules are great, but sensible application of guidelines might be a better approach...and too much information may be better than too little.
End semi-rant.
Jules
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org