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(a)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.