[Wikipedia-l] The whole Max Weismann thing

Wed May 29 19:59:54 UTC 2002

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