Joe, regarding your BLP opt-out proposal...
If I am passed over for a promotion by my employer, or a prospective hirer tells me they're "going to go in another direction" -- but their unspoken reason was a defamatory, poorly-researched, or vandalized Wikipedia article about myself, how do I "prove" that I was harmed by the article? [SIDENOTE: One can be harmed without even knowing it -- like radon in your basement, tumor-inducing radiation from cell phones, or having a severe allergy to tree nuts. Those who survive or find themselves to be immune rarely stop to consider the harm; but those who suffer life-threatening consequences rather pointedly seek out the culprit and make life-changing decisions to minimize the harm. It might boil down to this philosophy -- would you serve pecan pie to a guest party of 30 people, if you knew that one of them has a severe allergy? Most likely not. You can find other desserts that will equally satisfy ALL of your guests. But, what if there was a 1% chance that one of your guests might unknowingly have an allergy that might put them in the hospital if they eat your pecan pie? Do you serve pecan pie because it's still your favorite dessert? These are the trade-offs that BLP must face.]
Furthermore, speaking of vandalism, fate might have it that my boss or my prospective hiring decision-maker looks at an article about myself on Wikipedia for the 4 minutes immediately after it's been vandalized, but prior to its being fixed. What then? Will my complaint about having a briefly devastating but otherwise exemplary article on Wikipedia have any merit or basis for action? [SIDENOTE: I know, the answer is going to come back -- "stable versions". But, until then?]
The sooner everyone recognizes that Wikipedia is a fluid, publically-edited blog, and not a professionally-reviewed static encyclopedia, the sooner you might see how Living Persons might not even want a glowing article about themselves on Wikipedia, because the potential periodic risk might outweigh the latent long-term benefit.