1) Apart from the age of the link and pre-existing popularity, why would the "The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin" article rank higher than this site? After all, Google themselves recommend focussing on creating quality content, and that article is clearly a load of propaganda.
Although google's algo is complex, main characteristic is that each page (url) is weighted individually, you cannot compare single page in popularity with a whole site, it simply doesn't work that way.
The basic and the most common principle on which google assigns position to a particular resource (url) on a given search term over another are _inbound links_ (other resources linking to that url) in a relative context.
I'm pretty sure wired's article has been quoted and linked to by many other authoritative (popular) resources which provides even greater linking power (think of site that is linking to a page, sharing it's own page rank). On the other hand the forum used to be on bitcoin.org domain, although it's the most popular place to go to for bitcoin discussions I'd bet that not so many link directly to bitcointalk.org domain but rather to individual posts, in a way spreading page rank thin across many posts.
Another thing to consider when Google does its updates there are times when established positions change their rankings for some time, I've seen reports where people said their sites dropped in ranking for a week, two or more then came back to where they were.
For google whether something is propaganda or not doesn't really matter, their goal is to weight resources in relative popularity in context of any given search term.
If google was even a bit biased in assigning ranks to resources I suspect piracy sites would get no love from google