In other words, for academics to take it seriously (ask for time off, volunteer time to write a paper, spend money to travel out there, stay at a hotel, eat, etc.), it has to be run like a "real" academic conference. I could go present a topic and speak for an hour at my local Rotary club (and I have), but it's not really going to mean much professionally and I wouldn't be putting it on either my resume or curriculum vitae. Presenting a topic in a somewhat competitive forum where the speakers are vetted and the presentation topics have generally been run through some basic fact checking to make sure they're not complete bunkum would be something of a "feather in my cap", something that I would definitely put down on at least my curriculum vitae.
So, the question should be, is Wikimania a "real" academic conference, or a fan convention (or both)? I'd argue that, in its current state, Wikimania is basically a fan convention, designed as a big meet-and-greet for Wikipedia editors, with some presentations given that likely haven't been put up against any sort of test other than "It's not Time Cube, right?" That's cool, I enjoy fun conventions, but it's going to be difficult to attract "serious" academics to come as presenters.
Bart User:Banaticus
On 25 March 2012 17:42, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
This echoes what I was told by a lecturer at the Australian National University. Academics would like to participate at these events, but they need to clearly fit into the academic narrative. Conference precedeeings, a formal call for papers circulated to academic listservs, some indication of how the peer review process is done for deciding who presenters are, highlighting university participation as a co-host/partner for the event, a list of other academics who have been invited and will be participating, etc. There need to be signifiers that the conference is intentionally being marketed at academics, with academics having something they can take home from it.