Mathematics Without Numbers (1959)

I would have liked a summary before reading.

Why is writing a summary a bad thing?

Because HN readers can't know if the summary is an accurate representation of the original article, nor what detail or nuance has been winnowed out in the summarizing process. But if there is a summary that seems "good enough" to form an opinion, then the discussion on HN will be based on the summary, not on the complete article. We see the same thing with editorialized titles.

A better way to get a taste of the article is to look over the HN discussion. The top comment(s) should give people a hint as to what it's about and whether it's worth the time to read the whole thing. Otherwise just reading the HN discussion should be a good way to get the jist of it. But that only works if enough of the commenters have actually read the whole article rather than a summary.