they are breaking their own high standards ... sets a terrible precedent. I thought the OED would be a little classier
What a load of prescriptivist rubbish (as, indeed, is much of the article) - and a completely incorrect characterization of the OED, the purpose of which has always been to catalog as many English words as possible.
The OED's standards are not "high". They are, in fact, deliberately set rather low. The 10-year rule is meant to avoid documenting the most transient slang and nonce-words, essentially to serve as a heuristic to avoid words that don't "catch on" or are used exclusively (or primarily) by a single writer.
The precedent was set long ago. For at least five years they've been adding words even if they have no print citations. "Google", as a verb, was added in 2007. In 2003 they added "nucular" as a synonym for "nuclear" - and "blog", for that matter, which they date to 1999. (Note, please, that fewer than 10 years separate 1999 and 2003.)
As for "classier": while the first edition of the OED did start with English literature as its source, that was because the corpus of Great Books was a very manageable object for investigation. It was easy to partition in various ways (period, author, genre, etc) for multiple readers; it was easy to cite and confirm. And the words in those books were durable, because educated English speakers were largely familiar with them. But Murray, the first editor, famously described English as having "a well-defined centre but no discernible circumference"; and later editors have acknowledged that the center is not well-defined either.
Some other dictionaries aim to prescribe (and proscribe). The OED does not.