Help improve the LibraryThing entry on Wikipedia
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
Come help the LibraryThing entry on Wikipedia:
I think it's a little out-dated, and a little lopsided and generally could be made better. Unfortunately, Wikipedia discourages people like me from doing so (and for good reason). But I left some comments on the discussion page:
Please note, I'm not encouraging people to go over there and say positive things about LibraryThing. The current entry is quite positive—perhaps even TOO positive in places.
I've made a few changes, nothing too major. From going there I've realised it will be the sites second anniversary in four days!
I made a few too. (I don't think any would raise suspicions—indeed I removed some hyperbole.)
I still think it could be a LOT better, and that more reliable links and press references could be added. The reference to Anobii burns me—Shelfari and Goodreads are the comparanda. Someone should take a look at the Anobii page. It's promotional (with various future statements, like "will do X"), written in Chingrish and drew a "notability" flag. I think it's notable and should be on Wikipedia. There are interesting and good things to say, and press hits to mention. But the current entry is just not going to cut it.
This group does not accept members.
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.
Posting to this group is subject to moderation and group terms.
Group terms: No current group terms. Please obey the LibrayThing Terms of Service.