Hoi!
Why would, for instance, Jimmy Wales' work at a global scale be considered perfectly legitimate (and, of course, it is) but not Herman Carneiro's at a Goa level? How does your above grid fit this comparison? Or, do we accept hierarchies of importance, which are very much defined by the same old traditional concepts that have been dominating encyclopaedias over the centuries (and which the Wikipedia is an alternative to in the first place)?
I don't think any serious old paper-based encyclopedia would have considered serious to publish articles about its own authors, founders, etc. (that applies to Jimbo, too). In those times technology was living much longer then today and you would have expected a person to be (at least) dead before someone made them a monument or an article on an encyclopedia.
The same applies to articles that in a traditional encyclopedia would be better suited for the "news" section than for the "politics/history" section. One of the criteria I remember being taught about history it's that it's impossible to judge a process from within. So you should wait until an historical phase is over before you write about it as an historian. You are welcome to write about it as a journalist and/or an activist, but that's something not everyone will define as encyclopedic.
It's all very nice, but then it means nothing can be written about IT... so probably nowadays encyclopedias need another set of time delimiters. I would not expect such a change to happen without conflicts, though. So what you are experiencing is IMHO absolutely natural. When boundaries get moved you need a war to define their new look.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html