" 

 == A few thoughts from a semi-amateur Wikipedian... == 

 Ok, so, I had read this article years ago, I thought it was interesting, I'm not at all offended by it or by the content. Nothing in Wikipedia offends me. But putting it on the front page... I feels like a stunt to me. Yeah, I know, Wikipedia is not censored. But as has been noted, the front page IS. Is a nude photo ever the featured picture? Is the infamous ejaculation .gif ever going to be shown on the front page? If the article warrants FA status, will we ever see ""Cunt"" or ""Fuck"" or ""Nigger"", etc, as the front page featured article? I suspect not. 

 Add to that the fact that the front page is, essentially, off limits to edits from all but a select few... and thats a good thing! BUT there is a trust between vast majority of wikipedians who can't edit the FP and the few that can, and this make me think that trust might have been bent a little. Is it true, as has been mentioned, that the Jenna Jameson article, while a FA has been essentially blacklisted from ever being Todays FA? If that is the case, then there is some severe hipocracy going on here. 

 The whole thing actually strikes me a bit like, oh, Climbing the Reichstag Dressed Like Spiderman, maybe? It seems to me that people might be trying to make a point about policies such as ""WP is not censored"" by promoting an article that is well written, academic and emotionless but still chock full of language that is offensive to a great many people.  

 I appreciate the argument that promoting such an article to the front page is a chance to show how mature and serious we are. But I can't shake the feeling that shock value has something to do with it.  

 Anyway, a long time (if infrequent) editor signing off. The above are my opinions only, etc.   "