A good example of this concept in action is actually the whole Ethereum / DAO fiasco, where the contract code actually contained a bug. Turns out the bug was not intended to be “binding”, and thus the Ethereum chain was forked to undo any damage of the bug.
So seems like even the crypto / smart contract community agrees with this sentiment to some degree, although forking an entire block chain might be somewhat of a crude interpretation of “wiggle room”.
The way I understand it, the people behind Ethereum had significant skin in the game, in the form of lots of money/assets that got stolen, and that might have tainted their opinion about what to do
I recall that a second large theft [1] did not get a hard-fork resolution.
Whether it's due to bias from the core team or a wish to stay away from being a final arbitration after the first event, I'm not in a position to judge.
So seems like even the crypto / smart contract community agrees with this sentiment to some degree, although forking an entire block chain might be somewhat of a crude interpretation of “wiggle room”.