Talk:BookMooch

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles Websites: Computing Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Internet This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Internet culture This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

This entry is clearly written by the staff of the Web site it describes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.96.182 (talk)

The main author of the entry is a member of BookMooch, who improved an original, clearly inferior entry from the request of the site founder John Buckman. BookMooch staff - which basically means John Buckman and some volunteers - didn't write the entry. 91.153.203.125 17:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's still a pretty clear conflict of interest, and it is a concern. Note the above message was left back in May, so things have changed somewhat since then. But the article still reads far too much like an introduction to BookMooch rather than an encyclopedia entry, of interest to readers who are not connected with the site and want NPOV analysis of the organization. -- SiobhanHansa 19:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation needed in the Preventing Fraud section is this page: http://bookmooch.com/about/points 72.155.185.112 02:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added it in. -- SiobhanHansa 13:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two external references that have editorial oversight and could be referenced within the article to establish notability.

New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/business/media/15mooch.html

Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115879588172669481.html

The NYT article has several facts that could be cited -- 40,000 members, 300 new members per day, about 750,000 titles.

From the WSJ, perhaps "Sender is responsible for shipping costs" could be added to the "How it Works" section.

Here are some other potential references, but they may not meet the guidelines for acceptable sources.

Mark Flanagan's Literature: Contemporary Blog on About.com: http://contemporarylit.about.com/b/a/256489.htm

CNET News Blog: http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-6104889-7.html

Mashable (social networking news blog that screens submissions): http://mashable.com/2007/10/05/bookmooch-updates/

twit.tv show about BookMooch: http://www.twit.tv/itn33

Jdmaloney 17:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BookMooch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070504011926/http://blog.bookmooch.com:80/ to http://blog.bookmooch.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706073323/http://bookmooch.com:80/forum/bookmooch_blog to http://bookmooch.com/forum/bookmooch_blog

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on BookMooch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081005105544/http://blog.bookmooch.com/2008/06/30/new-york-daily-news-story/ to http://blog.bookmooch.com/2008/06/30/new-york-daily-news-story/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101208150529/http://blog.bookmooch.com/2008/03/25/is-bm-growing/ to http://blog.bookmooch.com/2008/03/25/is-bm-growing/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blog.bookmooch.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101208092150/http://blog.bookmooch.com/2006/12/14/some-stats-for-bookmooch-about-amazon-book-sales/ to http://blog.bookmooch.com/2006/12/14/some-stats-for-bookmooch-about-amazon-book-sales/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://bookmooch.com/forum/bookmooch_blog

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information on this article is so out of date that it may significantly misrepresent the current levels of activity and growth of BookMooch. Consensus on a couple of online writers' communities seems to be that BM has already peaked several years ago and is possibly in decline, mainly due to the level of trust or altruism required of members to remain active in the face of disproportionately low returns for their contributions.

Current info on membership numbers and growth is sorely needed. As is an NPOV section on its "Reception","Criticism" or "Achievements". yoyo (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be deleted due to not being relevant. 73.230.205.178 (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A more upodate academic article was published about BookMooch here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345136260_When_is_money_not_a_currency_Developments_from_Finland_of_proto-community_currencies 91.154.169.156 (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]