QUOTE(Random832 @ Tue 10th March 2009, 1:55pm)
Acceptable? Maybe. But don't pretend it's not there.
Of course it's there, but think of the negative-publicity potential. If the person is newsworthy, then the transparently public
attempt to whitewash the article about himself/herself should also be newsworthy, and might easily appear to be shameful, vain, and childish. Whereas, if the person isn't newsworthy, then maybe they shouldn't have been in Wikipedia to begin with?
Again, IMO you're thinking in Wikipedia-centric terms, whereby the need for CONTROL
trumps all other considerations, including accuracy, ethics, human decency, and common sense. The thinking is, we must not allow anyone to control Wikipedia content
(or more accurately, "we must not allow non-administrators to control Wikipedia content"). But that kind of control will always be an illusion, especially in the Wikipedia context. You might achieve it for a short time, maybe for a period of months or even a few years, but ultimately you'll lose it to someone more clever, more aggressive, and more skilled at playing the game. Ultimately, you will almost certainly lose, or at best, lose interest and give up. Meanwhile, the content will (probably) remain, in some form or other.
You also have to try to think of BLP inclusion as an honor,
not a punishment, because it really is an honor for the vast majority of BLP subjects. It means they've done something worthy of other people's attention, and most people do good
things, not bad things. There's probably a higher proportion of criminals and evildoers profiled in Wikipedia BLP's than exists in the general population, but I think if you were to actually count them all up, that proportion would still be way below 10 percent, and probably below 5 percent. Perhaps even more importantly, there's the inertia factor - most people just won't want to be bothered with the procedures required to opt out, much less fight an edit war with angry Wikipedians, unless they have a damn good reason and have exhausted the more convenient (i.e., anonymous) means of dealing with WP.
Also, don't forget the "dead tree" exemption. There's always a fair chance that someone so controversial as to generate edit-warring and general-purpose nastiness from WP users has already been biographically profiled (as opposed to simply reported on) in a printed publication that operates under the principles of peer review, publisher review, or both.