There's a fairly coherent consensus view of the salient points of the intro/extra dichotomy

Not at all. First of all, introversion was a concept long before psychologists started to get technical with it. Second, its appeal as a psychological concept is mostly to laymen like us, and it certainly isn't used in any technical sense when people write blog posts about how great introverts are. So even without citing any disagreements among psychologists, there's a question of whether we should go with a some psychologist's technical meaning or the meaning in popular usage. In popular usage, you can see disagreement here on this page.

One way to see how a word is used is Google:

http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/jung.html: "Weakness of the introverted attitude includes ... (1) a lack confidence in relation to people and things and (2) a tendency to be unsociable, shy, and hesitant." Don't worry, his list of weaknesses for extraversion is bigger ;-)

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsytraits.html: "The more obvious aspects of introversion are shyness, a distaste for social functions, and a love of privacy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion: "Introversion does not describe social discomfort but rather social preference: an introvert may not be shy but may merely prefer less social activities." Good ol' Wikipedia, the voice of the people ;-)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/introvert: "1. a shy person. 2. Psychology . a person characterized by concern primarily with his or her own thoughts and feelings ( opposed to extrovert)." Funny how dictionaries list multiple definitions for words. Clearly they're all wrong except one!

Here's a nice quote from Jung himself about the "extreme" introvert (gathered from this page: http://www.infj.com/INFJ_Introversion.htm): "In a large gathering he feels lonely and lost. The more crowded it is, the greater becomes his resistance. He is not in the least 'with it,' and has no love of enthusiastic get-togethers. He is not a good mixer. What he does, he does in his own way, barricading himself against influences from outside. . . . Under normal conditions he is pessimistic and worried, because the world and human beings are not in the least good but crush him. . . ."

Wow, that's a downer. You'll find more ammunition for yourself than for me on that page, though, as apparently psychologists have tried to empirically distinguish shyness, introversion, neuroticism, embarrassability, public shyness, private shyness, and sociability. Naturally in order to fit all those in as distinct concepts they've had to define them quite narrowly as aspects of personality instead of sticking to the broader idea of introversion as a "type."

However, on that page the immediate followup to the Jung quote I quoted (not by Jung, and possibly not referring to his views) is this: "In less extreme cases, introverts are simply more conservative than not, preferring the familiar surroundings of home and intimate times with a few close friends; they husband their energy and would rather stay put than go from place to place."

I think that characterization would be contested as well. So no, there is no coherent consensus. You can see all over this page as well that many of the arguments made here take the same form: accept my definition of "introvert", and my conclusions follow naturally. So the real argument is about the meaning of the word.

There's been plenty written on the topic, including the linked article, which you seem to reject.

I may be missing a better link elsewhere on the page, but the only "article" I see is one person's biased top-ten list inspired by a self-help book. You'll see a big difference between the Google results for introversion and the results for extro- or extraversion. There's a whole lot of boosterism and self-help content for introversion, but not for extroversion. I like some of it, but honestly, I think most of it can be ignored. We should know when we're being pandered to.