If I understand your original point correctly, it's this: it is human nature to attribute most things to user error, ergo, my assertion that Wikipedia's blaming its users was a "head-scratcher" was off the mark. Our evolved inclination, which predates the discipline of even considering UX as a tangible -- and, more important, a controllable -- concept, is first to start with the hypothesis that the user is in error. (And, furthermore, that such a hypothesis is not necessarily unjustified by historical frequency).

I actually agree with you here, but I think this point and mine are not so much at odds, as they are orthogonal. My point is that, human nature or not, Wikipedia came about in the modern era. Even if our cognitive bias/inclination is toward blaming the user, we have tools and analytic frameworks at our disposal which exist precisely to allow a necessary check against our brains' heuristics. Those checks should have been run by the Wikimedia elite. While I'll admit that "head-scratcher" is an unfair description, rendered mostly for rhetorical effect, I believe my point still stands. We have modern tools at our disposal, precisely because we are now -- uniquely, in our history -- aware of our brains' strengths and weaknesses in pattern recognition and situational assessment.

If this is not an accurate summation of your position, then I'll freely admit that I'm missing your point.