An Addendum To 'Wikipedia Style Guide': RoboCop Remake

During my brief research for the Wikipedia Style Guide article (which could've been better) I discovered that there is a planned release of a new RoboCop in 2014. Let the wrongness of a fucking RoboCop remake sink in for a moment. It doesn't feel good, does it? I mean, the RoboCop sequels were themselves inexcusable but inevitable, given the era in which they were made. The remake is even more inevitable, really, by the same ratiocination. I shouldn't be surprised in the least, except I rarely see movies at theaters, let alone the multiplexes that screen the impressive trailers of the next generation of big and dumb or deep and profound who-gives-a-fucks*.

I suppose I'm an idiot to object, but the remaking of a solid 80's masterpiece in the corporate wasteland of the 21st century which it was originally set in seems wrong to me on a fundamental level. It's almost a twisting of physical laws, as if a yottoscopic black hole passed through my mind while I had a perverse thought about how weird a relation it would be, and then via singularity that thought manifested itself as part of reality, or as possibility in minds close to the film industry. It's that weird to me. It's like the manifestation of a nightmare – but that's essentially what the world has been, behind the scenes at least, for my entire life and probably all other humans as well... which is the point of entertainment.

Overstatement. It's more fun than saying that a bunch of hacks want to release a new movie based on an old concept, as if they have anything meaningful to add to a concept they're borrowing for lack of inspiration. Profit trumping history. I guess that's what it is to live in 2013. Detroit is actually declaring bankruptcy (check out RoboCop 2 if you think I'm schizoid) and cocaine is as big a problem in America as ever, to the point where they either need to construct many real-life RoboCops (as well as a small army of ED-209s) to stop the trafficking or just let it win and stop making a fuss.

I don't want to be the wanker who says that a movie was 'eerily prescient' about 'modern society' because RoboCop was eerily contemporary about 80's culture and eerily great in every possible way, but movies aren't prophets and that particular one was only proven right because of the sheer amount of subliminal and/or retrograde insight the movie possesses. I bet the remake will make multiple references to drones. I am told that's a bet I'm not allowed to make. Mark my words: fuck RoboCop 2014, that shit ain't right.  

"Get ready for a hip, new RoboCop who understands EDM music and doesn't mind a bromance... or two!"

It boggles my mind, and then along comes this fucking remake which I'm sure can safely be judged on what kind of car the new RoboCop drives. Probably written by committee, guided by fuckers, and destined to be a grave insult to the spirit of the original in every possible way. Corporate slickness, top-40 EDM song in the trailer, GFX up the ass, possible box-office hit, dialogue from idiot hell, blood-curdlingly dumb and sensationalistic in every way... I'd buy that for a dollar and so will you!

**** I suppose they more commonly go by the colloquialism 'movies' or 'films', but when intelligent people band together and overthrow the world order they will be referred to as who-gives-a-fucks, I have it on good authority, since they generally function as soulless propaganda, socially acceptable narcotic, profit-motive, and distraction. Various cinema will still be allowed, for obvious reasons, but it is hoped calling them who-gives-a-fucks will be humbling to the industry.

Wikipedia Style Guide

If there was a style guide for Wikipedia (I didn't check) it would above all recommend 'the clinical tone of impartial record/sterile chronicle', which is an understandable and even commendable tone for a project that aims to encompass and provide the sum of human knowledge via the internet. However there are moments in which one can discern a personality beyond the dry Wikipedia tone ^{[citation needed]}. Sometimes it's a vandal or prankster, and those always lead to the greatest moments of Wikipedia, or the lowest, really. Most of the time it's just the earnest work of the tireless Wikipedian.

I wrote this because I don't believe there is a style guide for Wikipedia at all. There should be a set of loose recommendations and perhaps an editor. I can't blame a non-profit organization for not hiring a full time editor and I can't imagine anyone would particularly want the job (except hungry washed-out writers and editorial staff currently retraining out of Journalism into promising careers like banking, plumbing, or manual labor). Still, it would help a bit. I'm sure that individuals with a highly developed sense of grammar or the English language at large could find spelling and grammar errors at a ratio of .79 : 1 per Wikipedia page.

I know there's not a style guide because articles vary so wildly. Many are written in a serviceable and innocuous style. In the best articles there is no digression and very little error. In the worst, well, you find some surprising laziness. I don't know who exactly the wikipedia editors are – and I'm sure many of them are very well-intentioned,  knowledgeable, and capable people – but I get the sense they all have a musty internet smell about them ^{[citation needed]}. If they are the standard model for the librarians of the future, we may be doomed, for they will push the business of information right into the private market and/or entertainment industry. Maybe that prediction is a bit pessimistic, but we have no way of knowing whether it was something I wrote with an ironic smirk or caustic dismissal.

Unemployed university graduates, well-intentioned but 'eccentric' private citizens, and pedants make up probably 60% of Wikipedia editors, according to my highly amusing mental image of the average Wikipeditor. The other 40% is probably a remarkable melange of humanity, but I like to focus on the imaginary majority. They are all selflessly promoting the encapsulation and easy retrieval of verified, unbiased, correct information. It's a goal so lofty and impressive it makes me tender-hearted. I wish to offer my sincere thanks for the service, which has absorbed many of my spare hours and to which many more will doubtless be sacrificed, as long as the quality and tone do not spiral out of control.

Am I ridiculous? Allow me to demonstrate my point about Style and Usage, and a further point about the Illiteracy of the Internet Person. I will visit a prominent page of high stature (RoboCop, the 1985 Paul Verhoven movie) and traffic and look around innocently enough for some awkward constructions, grammar violations, and whatever else I deem fucked enough for notice.

Ah. These are the excerpts that inspired me. A pair of beauties. Shall I? I don't particularly want to, you understand: I get no pleasure from this, it's just part of the thing I'm writing a blog post about and nothing personal. I don't know if the RoboCop article gets the Wikipedia Writing A-Team, and if it doesn't, as stated above ^[where?] I understand that it's not professional copy or anything jesus christ leave an old man alone!

Anyways, 'having come off doing the special effects' as a construction is bad even for the 'first year University student's first hungover all-nighter' level. It's a special blend of missing prepositions and hazy colloquialism. I think it stinks, quite honestly. Shit. If this was written by a person with a post-secondary degree, any degree at all, they can fuck off and get schooled about how to write or leave their helpful insights out of the mix ^{[citation needed]}. Even done right ('Having come off of doing the special effects') the phrase is an inefficient abortion. The green line serves to indicate the thrust of the sentence, which asserts (via the erratic grammar of an illiterate) that the studio deciding about Bottin was itself coming off of doing the special effects for John Carpenter's The Thing. Where Bottin is even involved is impossible to discern, unless of course you're not a grammar machine and understand context. However, the lazy error stands, and goddamn it.

As for the inclusion of the second excerpt, I believe you know why I included the second excerpt. Redundancy is wasteful even at the level of the miniscule amount of bytes it takes to write a redundant element into a sentence. It also makes reading anything suck more than it has to, and in that way encourages illiteracy. Unacceptable. I'm not offended or outraged, I'm just having a bit of a laugh ^{[oh yeah?]} because 1) I want to have fun, and 2) I think that impeccable content is impossible in Wikipedia, which means the amount of awkward sentences and poorly disguised opinion (which I didn't even get into at all, but might at a later date) is potentially limitless! It's kind of fun, to me at least, and could be funny to others as well! Yeah, jokin' about Wikipedia. Good stuff.