A Shelfari Monopoly

I recently finished reading the Newberry award winning Carry On, Mr. Bowditch by Jean Lee Latham. I got on to Shelfari, a social book networking site to read more about the book and see what Shelfari has to offer. I learned a little about the book, but I was interested by all the empty sections that Shelfari had for Carry On. I decided to fill in by memory all the sections that I could: summary, ridiculously simplified synopsis, cast of characters/important people, setting and important places, table of contents, themes and symbolism, notes for parents, and links to supplemental material.

I hope that my submissions will help other shelfari-goers to choose to read Carry On, Mr. Bowditch. Therein, I feel, lies the problem. The success of Wikipedia is that just about everyone uses it for just about everything. I glanced at a couple other sites like Shelfari (goodreads and librarything) and it seems like they all accomplish roughly the same thing. I believe that a natural monopoly on reviews can be helpful because everyone can go to the same place and give their review or add their favorite quotes for a book. Just by increased traffic, the material is more likely to be true. What's wrong with a natural monopoly on social book networking?