Writers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for authors, editors, reviewers, professional writers, and aspiring writers. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm writing a book review as part of my English Holiday Homework. The book (or rather, prolegomenon) that I'm reviewing is Battle of the Books by Jonathan Swift.

Due to obvious reasons for my inability to obtain a hard-copy of the book, I defaulted to getting a copy from the internet. I got a couple of sources, including a couple on WikiSource and this PDF.

My question is, what should I put in the 'publisher' field in my book review ( we have to stick to a strict template :/ ):-

  • "WikiSource" and a link?
  • Google for a publisher that once published the book (though it's books aren't the book I'm using)?
  • "N/A"?

Edit: I've added an answer on what I think should be put in the field ("WikiSource"). But if anyone can provide reasons for another answer, please add that too :)

share|improve this question
I'm not sure if the reason that I haven't gotten the answer yet is b'coz this site simple isn't as popular as Stack Overflow or b'coz my question is inappropriate or uninteresting in its current form... – YatharthROCK Aug 6 '13 at 12:25
YatharthROCK, welcome to Writers! This site is much smaller than Stack Overflow. I expect you'll get an answer, but we have fewer users and things take a little longer here. While you're waiting I hope you'll browse some of our other questions. – Monica Cellio Aug 6 '13 at 13:06
The book was clearly self published, so why don't you use the writer's name on publisher? And, btw, why are you bothering so much with that if the author himself didn't bothered to add his name in the manuscript? I wouldn't spend too much time on ti and use "Jonathan Swift self published". – Psicofrenia Aug 6 '13 at 13:33
@Psicofrenia I think you've got it. Make that an answer. – Lauren Ipsum Aug 6 '13 at 14:31
@LaurenIpsum It is not really "self" published since the material is being published by others (being in the public domain, originally published along with A Tale of a Tub in 1704). – Paul A. Clayton Aug 6 '13 at 14:57
up vote 2 down vote accepted

The author didn't put it up for free; the works were documented by the WikiSource Project after they came into the public domain (possibly from an earlier printed book).

I don't think that's self-publishing. From Dictionary.com, the definition of a publisher is ‘a person or company whose business is the publishing of books, periodicals, engravings, computer software, etc.’. Sounds like "WikiSource" is the right answer here...

share|improve this answer
BTW, this is just what I think. The Q is still open for discussion... – YatharthROCK Aug 7 '13 at 2:41

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.