Featured articles (also known as FAs) are Wikipedia's version of ED's Article of the Now, which means they get displayed on the main page for a day as they represent TOW's finest work. Currently, at the moment, there are less than 9000 featured articles because Wikipedophiles tend to be very strict about the high standards that Wikipedia should maintain.
Most featured articles have not actually been on Wikipedia's main page, despite popular belief. This is because there are teams of slaves to the wiki with the ability to write quality material, but absolutely no ability to think for themselves, and an endless capacity to suck cock. There exist featured articles on a wide variety of subjects; despite this, most of them are on topics that are unfunny and generate absolutely no lulz, with a mass of featured articles about inane fancruft and articles about shit bands that nobody cares about, as well as historical events, people and locations that were forgotten by normal people at least 100 years ago.
Moar about featured articles
There is a featured article on pornstar Jenna Jameson (written by a pervert called AnonEMouse who along with Epbr123 are the resident Wikipedia porn addicts), however it will never be going on the main page to protect the kiddies from the evil Wikipedophiles who are educating them about something their parents wouldn't tell them about, or even know about, in accordance with WP:CHILD, which the user SqueakBox, founder of the Pedophilia Article Watch WikiProject, approves of.
Like its inbred cousin the good article there are rigorous quality standards which any featured article must adhere to. When an editor wants to get an advantage over other editors, he goes to the featured article candidates page and asks whether other people want the article to be promoted. It's nothing to do with the quality of the article whether it will be promoted and have the little golden star in the top right corner - it's purely based on whether the editors involved like the subject matter or not. This makes a mockery of Wikipedia's ideas about consensus and all the other crap they made up and tried to impose on the rest of the internet.
Grawp has regularly attacked the featured article with his HAGGER?????????????????????????? vandalism. He has also made Anonymous his personal army, and successfully gets the featured article of the day semi-protected (look at the revision history for their Victoria Cross article). As Smugfag stated in his 17-minute ego trip rant against Anonymous in March 2008, it's not that difficult to get anons, especially 4chan newfags, to blindly follow you like a sheep, making his comparison of Anonymous to the Co$ actually a valid point in some ways because they're both dangerous cults, although he's certainly not the first person to have thought of that.
Featured articles are without exception extremely TL;DR. A form of cancer on niggertits is people making threads about the featured article, and the picture that accompanies it (if there is a picture - fair use images cannot be on the main page because WIKIPEDIA IS THE MOST ANAL, STRICT, HEAD UP ITS OWN FUCKING RECTUM website OTI and the faggots controlling its content are over 9000 times moar butthurt and paranoid than 99% of sane internet users are). For example, someone made a thread about the FA Reese Witherspoon on /b/ last Thursday, and asked whether anons would "hit it". Obviously not original content, and the obvious answer is going to be yes for almost all /b/tards, thus it is cancer, but cancer of the "cute, thirtysomething woman that you'd probably want to fuck" variety.
Lulzworthy featured articles
- The Virginia Tech Massacre. This FA was on the main page on April 16, 2008, to celebrate the anniversary of the shootings. On the talk page, a butthurt Wikipedo starts BAWWWWWing about the possibility that having this as a featured article might encourage similar shootings in the future, something which would create lulz and drama. The faggot however failed to realize that WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED, a common motto of internet tough guys patrolling the dark alleyways of the wiki.
- A South Park episode satirizing Scientology. This was on the main page on March 15, 2008, both the birthday of L. Ron Hubbard and the organization of protests against Scientology worldwide by moralfags. Any coincidences here?
- There was an attempt to get Uncyclopedia to featured article status. However, it failed, and it remains at good article status. This failure is a good thing, seeing Uncyclopedia asspies collectively reach unprecedented levels of butthurt.
- 4chan on was featured on January 14 2009. This resulted in posters on /b/ to vandalize the article leading to semi-protection and butthurt on the Administrators' noticeboard. Also there was an attempt to scare newfags who would be visiting 4chan on that day.
Wikipedia began as a nerd's dream, but now it is apparent to everyone that it has failed to be what people wanted it to be. The featured article process is more corrupt than a Kazakh police officer being offered a bribe of 300 U.S. dollars to let you get away with a crime, because the final decision is made by an overweight wop known as Raul654. It's embarrassing to watch the internal bickering between the morons at the administrator's noticeboard, which is a lulzworthy thing to read from time to time, watching admins get butthurt whenever an anon-IP makes an edit about carrying out a school shooting in some shithole town in the USA. It's embarrassing to read their pretentious, bullshit articles full of lies, pedantry and faggotry. Wikipedia is overall an epic failure and readers here are encouraged to boycott it and vandalize it as much as possible in the most annoying way possible (see Grawp for instructions). It's no wonder that established users are choosing to leave, even if they've written a shitload of featured articles.
ED, on the other hand, is actually both fun to contribute to and to read, and doesn't make you cringe at the fact that Wikipedia is epically trying too hard. Featured articles on ED are topical, relevant, and lulzworthy, usually containing much drama. They are usually worth reading, because they won't bore you to death. And unlike Wikipedia, most importantly, ED does have a sense of humor, and can take a joke or an ad hominem insult without being offended like Wikipedos always are when something they don't agree with happens.
- List of featured articles. Good luck trying to get your favorite subject onto that list, but if I were you, I wouldn't bother, because even if you reference it, those who don't like you will oppose it.
Featured article is part of a series on
Visit the Wikipedia Portal for complete coverage.
|Featured article May 14, 2008|
|Featured article||Succeeded by|