From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a proposal for a new Wikimedia Foundation Sister Project.
Status Stale (could be re-opened)
Reason Summary: there're plenty of websites doing this. Alternatively you can create individual articles about books in Wikipedia. Review: There're several proposals (see Reviewiki), none of which reaches consensus. Few other supports other than proposer.--GZWDer (talk) 06:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
What is the proposed name for the project?
Project description
What is the project purpose? What will be its scope? How would it benefit to be part of Wikimedia?
How many wikis?
Will there be many language versions or just on one multilingual wiki?
How many languages?
Is the project going to be in one language or in many?

Technical requirements
If the project requires any new features that the MediaWiki software currently doesn't have, please describe in detail. Are additional MediaWiki extensions needed for the project?
Development wiki
Interested participants

The primary purpose of this wiki would be academic: It would be aim to summarise books and academic articles in order that readers could get a quicker overview - as a student I am very aware of how often academic writers use 30 pages where 5 might do. By doing this, wikisummary would aim to make this accumulated human knowledge more accessible. In addition, and in keeping with the academic purpose of this wiki, each summary would have a space or a link for (opiniated) reviews by individuals, which would allow for different angles and debate.

Although I originally thought of this as aimed at academic books/literature, it could potentially also cover e.g. films

Proposed by[edit]

Iamsorandom (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternative names[edit]



Related projects/proposals[edit]


  • Related, could have links to:*




Domain names[edit]

Mailing list links[edit]

Demos[edit] (No longer a wiki - failed to get contributions). - squashed philosophers; detailed but condensed versions of key philosophical texts. - - summaries and reviews of films.

People interested[edit]


  1. R1xhard (talk)


Would reviews need to be protected so that they were normally only for editing by the original author? Or maybe they should only be edited for grammar/readibiity rather than content? Would this require software development?

"Would reviews need to be protected so that they were normally only for editing by the original author?" If that was the case, and I can't imagine why it would be, then there's no point in having a Wiki in the first place. QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As suggested above, the point could be do to have a wiki-summary with multiple subjective reviews connected to that. Iamsorandom (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)