Hate to agree, but... yeah.
Suspensions aren't handled by merit of how much damage was caused to the victim, whether we like it or not- if they were, folks like Matt Cooke or Todd Bertuzzi would have had much shorter careers than they actually got. When the ruling gets handed down, there's no way of knowing if a guy is out long-term, or will miss no time at all. And really, that's how it SHOULD be. It's not a matter of 'no harm no foul', it's a matter of a rules violation. The results aren't important- the act is.
What Wideman did was bizarre (the concussion excuse is both quite possible and still not reason to avoid punishment), it was by any reasoning against the rules... there's no sport in which attacking a referee is acceptable, after all. That he got as short of a suspension as he did is still surprising, but until we discover a way to look into the future there's no way to determine how long someone will be out with an injury, and so there's no good way to use that as a way to gauge suspensions. (Of course, the ability to look into the future would make the sport obsolete anyway ;) )