I think there already are (and there certainly will be more) occasions when a Bookogs user owns and sumbits a book of an author of whom little is known to most information hubs, and provides more detailed data than in most online library databases. So at least some Bookogs pages would seem eligible for what they call Authority control. Bibliography here is rarely complete but still may HAPPEN to be useful for a researcher (it happens to me). There are Discogs and MusicBrainz in their Wikidata identifiers base, do you think Bookogs should also be? (For example, check the bottom of this article if you never paid attention to templates. It's not about a musician but about ‘our’ writer, still there's a MusicBrainz link. No Discogs though.)
It would be good for the website but my impression is it's still too early. There again I've no idea what criteria would make Bookogs "acceptable" to Wikipedia. Seeing as the Wiki pages are updated by users themselves, maybe we could add them?
I've got a Wikipedia account but I don't find it particularly user friendly (plus I've got a big bee in my bonnet about what they consider a credited source but that's a different story!).
Wikidata is a lot more liberal, in regards of acceptability of a source, than any language-specific Wikipedia project. What i'm now thinking of is linking Bookogs Credit and Work pages from Wikidata items with exactly matching subjects. This can be done if database properties are created.
I think it's a great idea that will hopefully bring more people to site. If you can do it, go for it.
I would absolutely agree to have a tighter binding to Wikipedia. A lot of work on bookogs is done by researching and citing wiki and sometimes translating content.
Wiki provides us with a lot of work, already done, it would be great if wiki could profit by our work in exchange.