I will confess to have already largely forgotten the contents of the OP by the time I got to the end of the thread to make a comment. I have actually forgotten it by somewhere in the middle of the thread, and got largely tired of the back-and-forth from the white and brown high-horses enough that I skipped the rest. And yes, I do enjoy wordplay, to whatever degree I'm capable of it.
Also. Let's not forget that in any f-up, a number of levels of incompetence are involved every time.
For instance, in Bing, the default search engine of the default browser of the default operating system in the world, 8chan is not unlisted. 8chan's /b/ board is the fourth link down (right now at least), past two Wikipedia entries and the site's Twitter feed. And the only reason there's two Wiki articles is because one is in russian. The only thing you see from this page is a short link to History:Controversies provided by Wikipedia, with no mention of details.
If I were using Bing through IE and not Google through Firefox, I could scan past the wiki articles assuming the regular 4chan-style controversies, get on the site's front page, find the /v/ board in the top of the list, and post whatever. It doesn't quite feel right using the Hanlon's Razor here, as I do think there was a level of malicious thought involved, but up to the point of posting the AMA and firing off the first few stupid replies, I can still see it applying.
You may, in fact, be overestimating how many people are involved in planning and executing an AMA. From what I see, it's usually one to three people, usually with permission from a higher-ranking manager, who they will defer to for decisions on what can be said. It effectively takes one man making and deciding on a stupid course of action, to pull any number of people along after him. It takes one man tasked with research not doing due diligence, and the others relying on that research, for this whole thing to be entirely plausible.
(also, I just read the wiki article they would have had as the first search result on Bing. The way it's described is much, much tamer than any accusations here, and while it would have raised red flags for even associating with a controversy like that, it's explicitly stated that posting it is illegal and the site merely "does not impose more laws than are enforced in Washington D.C.". The price of an unbiased information source, I guess.
And the first result on Google is the same Wiki article, btw. Just checked. Article has link to frontpage in the sidebar and everything too, though at least not in the article preview in Google search.)