From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
edit Make the article bureaucratic!
Wouldn't it be funny if we made this article bureaucratic to read? Like:
Do you want to read this article? THen you have come to the right place! All you have to do first is to follow these steps...--22.214.171.124 14:59, May 5, 2013 (UTC)
This would be a rewrite, as an article on "Bureaucracy" already exists. Therefore, you rewrote it, regardless of how much content from the current article is in this version. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 03:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
edit am I missing a joke?
Either I'm missing a pretty decent joke here, or this text looks like it belongs in an unbooks page. It's too well written to be a mistake, but it doesn't seem at all related to the topic.--Concernedresident 18:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
It's intentional, I'm going "outside the box" with this one.
No matter how much people think this should be an unbook, they will not change my mind. EVER.--Gubby 19:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
OK: someone's moved this article to UnBooks. It seems like I'm going to have to explain myself more clearly on this one.
This is not an unbook. Why? Because the content is intentionally somewhat at a tangent to the title. If you opened a book that called itself "bureaucracy" you'd expect something in it to refer directly to bureaucracy, or at least explain the title. For instance, in the book "A Clockwork Orange" you learn that the book is named after a point in the story where there is a guy who's writing a novel which is called "A Clockwork Orange". If that bit of the story had been left out, you'd be left thinking, "whaa? I read through it all and not once was there an explanation as to why this book was called what it was! I only reason I bought the book was to find that out anyway!" So as to prevent this sort of thing, the writer has to create some lame excuse for having written a title that was blatently just an eye-catcher anyway.
Not so here. That "whaa?" factor you get when finding an article which seems to have nothing to do with the title is intentional; it's humour. You come here expecting a wikipedia style article on bureaucracy. BAM! I've hit you where you don't expect it with a story. It's that dissonence between what you expect and what you get -- the conflict between two realities -- which forces laughter out of you, almost as if it were a rejection in the mind of some foreign material.
Said all that, it's not an amazing joke. I don't expect everyone or even many people to get it, but I don't care, I think it's worth keeping it like that despite the protests of however many people who think it should be in the more obvious namespace.
All good? Ok.--Gubby 04:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
edit This is kind of weird
Reminds me of Diaboliad by Bulgakov. Even a little Lewis Carol. Did you do this on purpose or am I imagining shit? 126.96.36.199Me
And By the way, I am from the US, I am not fat, ignorant, or arrogant and I read Bulgakov. So fuck off america bashers