I have never once experienced this problem. Mostly because I don't work with people who blindly commit everything without even looking once to see what's in their commit.
Ultimately, it's the responsibility of each developer to determine whether or not the files they've added to their local clone really belong in source control! I've never encountered this issue, either, and I think I'd be unhappy working on a team where it was a serious problem.
That said, the whitelist approach does seem kinda interesting. It's really what should be present from the start, since Git had a manual staging process. But maybe this gap highlights a legit usabiiity issue. Maybe "add everything" plus an explicit, version-controlled whitelist is somehow easier or more intuitive than the "add nothing" default.
--
To me the normal approach makes equal sense. I create a file, but I'm not ready for other people to see it yet, because it's just a placeholder. So I don't add it. But another set of files are ready, and are part of one logical step of the change, so I add them specifically and commit.