From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is a proposal for a new Wikimedia sister project.
Status of the proposal
ReasonSummary: 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)Reply[reply]
Technical requirements

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]