Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 14, 2009

Associated Comments[edit]

Dear Wiki, you're probably lost the comment page, it would be easier to just ignore it for a while. Oh yeah also this is a bad idea etc but hey, you're the keepers of the knowledge and don't really give two shits what the rest of the Internet thinks so, whatever. Kakama (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, uh... you realise on the 14th, wikipedia will be featuring what appears to be basically a messageboard for the trafficking of child porn? 122.107.136.94 (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we do a lolcat as an image for this? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please not, just the official 4chan logo. --Lichtbaum (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot use the 4chan logo because of copyright issues. I'm not sure one way or the other about whether we should use an lolcat. We could use file:Moot roflcon.jpg, but I'm not thrilled about the prospect. Raul654 (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking representing the "cess pool of the internet", maybe a cropped version of File:Bball rickroll collage.JPG could get the message across. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inb4 hornet's nest....

Inb4 influx/raid of "illegal contents" on the boards that day and Wikipedia redirecting users to enjoy the scene...

Have fun directing users to CP, scat porn, a cespool of memes, camwhores and..../b/oxxy wikipedia.

Inb4 over 9000 "OMGZ WIKIPEDIA TOLD ME TO GO TO THIS HERE SITE AND NOW IM SCARRED FOR LIFE. LETS CALL BILL O'REILLY!"

Should be a good day.

This is a really bad idea[edit]

Am I the only one who thinks this is a really really bad idea for a featured article?

4chan has been labeled time and time again as the cess pool of the internet. It could be EASILY argued that it is an adult website. Should Wikipedia feature an adult website on it's home page? This just seems like a bad idea. 71.230.83.11 (talk)

Though I don't agree with it, it would not be the first time; History of erotic depictions is a former featured article of the day. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS A TRAVESTY[edit]

A TRAVESTY I SAY

This is a very stupid idea[edit]

While 4chan is by no means the cesspool of the internet (I've seen worse), you are going to see an influx in gore porn, child porn, vulgarity and etc etc for a few days because of this. Did you forget Wikipedia is used in schools? Did you forget about all the people who actually pay attention to the front page? I feel like this is an April Fools joke. This is a really bad idea. Aren't there young kids who will read about 4chan? It's an 18+ website guys! COME ON agahnim 14:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't belong in any cesspool. There are good and valid boards on 4chan. You don't have your facts together.

Young kids make up most of the 4chan userbase, the age for the average user is somewhere around 15 years old. There should be no problem in having a few more.

You're talking about /b/ and /a/; and even that's not accurate. Check the demographics section on the Advertise page[1]. But even if that were so, what of it? Why would demograpic be a factor in this decision?

4chan is an adult website, with graphic racism, images of death, pornography and child sexual abuse. putting it on the front page of wikipedia is utterly ridiculous

4chan has many 18 and below boards.

The entire site is 18+ you fucktard

Go away EFG. We know it's you.

This is a very, very, very, very stupid idea[edit]

First off, this action is GUARANTEED to produce a response. Whether the response is inside 4chan (guro/scat/shock/zippocat spam like when other sites brought influxes of new views) or inside wikipedia (vandalism sprees), the fact is that there are going to be negative consequences for this. Secondly, 4chan is a site that neither wants nor deserves publicity.

Third, RULES ONE AND TWO, NEWFAGS

A serious note[edit]

This is a terrible idea. 4chan is a community that grows and changes organically, and featuring it on the main page of the eight most popular website will artificially alter the userbase. Surely the integrity of an institution thought influential enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia should not be put in jeopardy so callously.

quick question[edit]

does this featured article mean that wikipedia would not be opposed to frontpaging, say, an article on goatse, shock images, ogrish, etc? ThrustVectoring (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask User:Raul654, as he's the one in charge of that. He's stated that there are some articles which he doesn't intend to put on TFA under any circumstances, though, and the ones you've mentioned would probably fall under that category.

Of course, that'd depend on those articles making FA in the first place. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how did we get to this point?[edit]

An idiotic shock website swarming with lunatics on the front page! What's next, a life-sized picture of Jimbo's ass?--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Today's featured article looks really bland without an image. I recommend either File:Moot roflcon.jpg or File:Wikipedia-lolcat.jpg. Neelix (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} This blurb should be updated to match the lede of the article which has been edited heavily since this blurb was first posted. Mike R (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done earlier, I forgot to mark it! -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We still don't have an image. No one has objected; is anyone who has the power willing to add one? Neelix (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there are no free images that are relevant to 4chan. There are related pictures, such as lolcats, that could be used, but they aren't of much significance to the subject. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good FAotD[edit]

With so many negative comments on this page, I thought I'd butt in to say that I find this whole thing hilarious. It is not the role of Wikipedia to play the nanny for people, and the subject is definitely notable and has received significant news coverage...bravo, Raul. —Pie4all88 ^{T C} 21:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]