The thing is, the argument in favor of the 1/3 solution on the Wikipedia page is flawed. I tried to explain the flaw, but perhaps I failed. It makes me cringe when I think that people are going to that page for the solution.

Also, not only did I critique the wikipedia page, but I critiqued parts of papers by Radford Neal and Nick Bostrom.

That's not to say my post deserves more up votes. Others can judge the quality of my work. But I'm pretty sure I covered some new ground here.