This is best described as "reversion to the mean". A democratic, non-moderated site like Reddit and News.YC will start off attracting folks on the right end of the bell curve, and over time, gain traction to attract the unwashed masses. Then, someone will get fed up and go start another site, and the cycle begins anew. I'm not being elitist or snobbish; this is what I have observed since the USENET of the 1990s. It always happens.
It definitely was never overrun with ignoranuses, at least not for any extended period of time.
Why? It's not like they discuss the story or you actually get prizes for a high karma?
Nowadays I prefer finding a page edited by someone who shares similar interests as me e.g. boingboing or hackaday. Otherwise things just degenerate into "FUNNAY PIC [LOL!]" quickly.
Maybe rather than have a single pool of submitted stories, you could chose whose stories show up on your page.
Personalized links (assuming personalization works well) would come closer to your interests, but there may be few people to discuss them with.
And so one might consider a way to allow users to pick some point between these two extremes that they would be happy with.
I wonder if this is the eventual fate of all online communities. I've been through at least half a dozen now, and I've yet to see one survive as something other than trite, meaningless bullshit.
The curious thing is - in at least one case (HP fandom, and possibly the C2 wiki), I kept the friendships that I formed in it. Maybe that's the real point of online communities - form offline friendships, and keep those.
Looking forward to the Boston meetup on Sunday...