Talk:Academic conference/Archives/2013

examples and definitions

Can anyone explain the differences between

• themed,
• comprehensive, and
• professional
  conferences

Nope - and I work in this area! It's been carried across through many revisions without anyone questioning it.

Can anyone define the differences between

• convention,
• congress, and
• conference.

or should they be treated as synonyms. ? DGG 04:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

They're synonyms

History

I'd love to know more about the HISTORY of academic conferences.

This article needs serious expantion. I'd love to have a list of academic conferences :) History is interesting, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

exactly, history is interesting. for a start, this was the first scientific conference ever: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/88/8836sci1.html --Tcheh (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

advertising?

why is the latest one more of an advertisement than the other two.?

Spam links

This page seems to have an extraordinary number of external links. If these links all contain material relevant to the article why isn't the material included in the article rather than direct linking to these services/websites? -- timdew (^Talk) 09:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are you deleting only certain links and not all of them? If you want to be correct you must delete all of the spam links or let all of them list their websites! cwfrei 16:15, 20 October 2006

perhaps you'd like to try that yourself, I've just been stopping anon-ip users adding even more links whilst waiting for the other editors on here to come to an agreement on which others should be removed. --timdew (^Talk) 20:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly allow these companies to add links to their respective websites. The industry is so diverse and speciallized so potential viewers of this page surely want to get an overview of possible companies who can assist them in proceeding abstract or/and full paper as well as posters. cwfrei 14:51, 23 October 2006

this is an encylcopedia not a web directory -- timdew (^Talk) 17:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If it concerns a notable company that has actualy worked on major conferences, and if that can be told from their website, it is appropriate to link to them here. The comanies that have been listed here are not all of the same type.

I am perfectly willing to check each one, see if it is real, and try to determine what it does, & say that neutrally in a word or two. I have no particular vested interest in any of them, or even with the whole category. It would be of value to many users to see the variety of functions that are performed--obviously this should go in the article eventually, but at least we can keep the links. This is appropriate to WP: there are tens of thousands of such links for commercial organizations. They are part of the RW. DGG 04:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

cwfrei's comments are disingenuous. He's the sales manager of an abstract management company. This is a commercial marketplace like any other. Would spam links to Ford or GM be acceptable in an article about cars?

As it happens, there is a long multi-part article for both ford and GM, and among the pages linking to them is "automobile." DGG 04:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I added a section "Conference Resources" under external links, then added my link to a website containing information on organising a conference. The website covers all types of conferences so I also posted the link in business conferences. The content is purely informational and free to read. There is no purchase necessary whatsoever. I can't see why this is deemed "inappropriate". Why was this removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixWriter (talk • contribs) 13:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned in the links posted on your talk page, Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a clear and consistent policy yet for external links? I added a link to our abstract management service to the list of managed services but it was immediately removed. The other links in the list were not. To me this seems arbitrary. I would argue that links to abstract management solutions are indeed appropriate to an entry dealing with academic conferences. If my only error was adding the link as an anonymous user, then I'll go back and add it under my user account. If the link was removed for any other reason, then I would love to know what it is and why it's not being applied to the other two external links. Ddb2 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• There are very clear policies about links. WP:EL was mentioned in the warning notice I placed on your Talk page after you added a link to this article. In addition the current links, which are in the article as examples of typical services and not as promotions, score highly for notability - they have many Google hits while your site has a mere 31 hits. There are also issues of conflict of interest - it's clear from your edits that you are personally involved with the site. In any case, adding a link here won't drive traffic to your site. andy (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the COS and OA links in the "Organizing an academic conference" section be removed from the article for the following reasons: 1) There are no links for PCOs in the first graf. Not having links there but having links for managed services in the very next graf is inconsistent. 2) All external links were removed from the Abstract management article back in May 2006 because "they ad no encyopedic information that is not in the article". The same could be said for the links in this article. 3) Keeping the links and not allowing others can cause confusion by implying that the listed companies are the only options for conference organizers, which is definitely not the case. Either more commercial links need to be allowed or all commercial links need to be prohibited. The latter seems to be more in line with existing WP policies. Ddb2 (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Any objection to the above? I still feel the two companies listed in this section contribute nothing substantive to the article and are not appropriate sources for the claim made in the sentence (that "Increasingly, submissions take place online using a managed service."). That sentence should be sourced, not supplemented with examples. Ddb2 (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yup, I still object. You have no edit history in Wikipedia other than an attempt to promote your own website, so your motives are highly suspect. In my opinion as an editor of considerable experience you aren't trying to improve the article but rather to create a context in which your own website can be "listed". Wikipedia doesn't work like that - adding links does not improve your search engine position. If you genuinely believe that a source should be found why not find it? Otherwise a couple of examples of well known companies who have informative websites seems reasonable to me. andy (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how the "motives" you've ascribed to me affect the validity of my argument. If someone else proposed these changes, would you dismiss them as readily? For me, the issue boils down to your claim that the COS and OA sites are "informative" and, therefore, more worthy of being listed in the article than other for-profit entities that sell abstract management systems. Truthfully, I can't find any basis for that claim. Nothing I can find on their sites contributes to a reader's understanding of academic conferences. All I see is marketing materials. Ddb2 (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What about comitees???

It would be very nice to explain what the typicall structure of the bodies involved in organising a conference are. Howcome the word "comitee" doese not appear on the page? It should be explained what the comitees are (programm, steering and organising comitees, others?).--Powo 11:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. What if the first graf in the "Organizing an academic conference" section is changed to something like: "Academic conferences are usually organized by trade associations, scientific societies or groups of researchers with a common interest. Typically, one or more committees of members from the sponsoring organization are responsible for setting the overall direction of the meeting, including picking a location and dates, deciding on a theme for the program, and selecting speakers. Most organizations execute the vision set by the organizing committee(s) themselves using their own staff and volunteers. Larger meetings, however, may require the assistance of a Professional Conference Organizer (PCO)." I think it would be useful to include a list of frequently used committees with their responsibilities. Does anyone have any thoughts on what committees should be included? Powo mentioned Program, Steering and Organizing. Are there others? Ddb2 (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like some evidence that meetings "require" a professional organizer. I consider this as spam. DGG (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The text I proposed doesn't say 'require'. It says 'may require'. Big difference in my opinion. Would 'may necessitate' be any better? 24.173.26.226 (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be best to find out what do the reliable sources say on the matter... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much what's currently in the text - sometimes they use PCOs, sometimes not. There's no "requirement", nor even an established practice. In fact the very largest conferences often don't use a PCO because the society has a large and well established secretariat. If anything it's the medium sized conferences that need external help. I see no reason to change the text. I'll add references shortly. andy (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Detecting Scam Conferences

It would be good to add some text to this article about how to know if a conference is worth attending. I get a lot of invitations to conferences that all seem to be sponsored by an organization that, on closer inspection, exists solely for the purpose of holding conferences. The names of these events certainly look interesting; doing a quick web search reveals that many individuals from academic and research organizations have participated in the past. Doing a web search on the names with the word scam attached, however, shows that these events are in fact not quite what they seem.

Research funding is tight, and preparing a paper or poster for a conference, then traveling to the conference, is expensive. It's a real shame to think how much money is spent on bogus conferences; it would be very helpful if we could encourage people to stick with meetings that are sponsored by legitimate research and academic organizations.

TechNaN (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a very important addition to make. Here are a couple of sources for it: [1] [2]. It seems hard to find others because i) there probably aren't many, other than blogs which are not great sources for wikipedia ii) there isn't one standard term for them and iii) many of the top links returned in searches are to pages defending certain junk conferences, set up by the same people who run the conferences Housecarl (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Those are good examples. I've added them to the article. Probably needs internal links to SCIGen as well. andy (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with doing it this way--disagree to the extent that I have removed the links. This would have to be done as a properly sourced section for NPOV. DGG (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

On mature reflection I think you may be right. Maybe I was too enthusiastic. There's already the basis of an entire article in SCIgen, Sokal affair and other places, but I'm not sure about NPOV - who's to say what's a scam and what isn't. Any thoughts? andy (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

scam is a pretty strong word, and there are degrees of quality in conferences as in other things. The term can be used all too easily for something promotional but nonetheless of some value. I think the use here was over-rhetorical, and the best thing to do is to add further general discussion about the features of academic conferences, which will provide information for people to judge. DGG (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional resource for list of conference section

We would like to suggest you Conferensum that covers academic conferences as well as other types of events around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conferensum (talk • contribs) 14:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• This resource seems to have very few academic conferences. Personally I doubt if it would be of value to the article in the way that wikipedia policy states at WP:EL andy (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to precise dear Andy that Our Website is still young and we are working hard to have the most complete listing of upcoming Business & Academic events, conferences, trade shows and seminars around the world. (More academic topics are coming soon on Conferensum)

At this stage, we would be delighted to have our reference as others on this page. Thank you for understanding! Regards

• I have removed the link. Your site contains very little that is relevant to this article. Feel free to post the link again in a few months time when it has something to contribute. But please be aware of wikipedia's spam policies - see WP:LINKSPAM. And also note that adding a link will not increase your profile on search engines. andy (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Conference directory website link

Is it appropriate to list World Conference Calendar here as an external link? Yfzulfikar (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• It seems to be very limited - see here. Frankly I'm not sure there should be any links at all, but if there are they should definitely have thousands of conferences not a couple of hundred. andy (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

taking photos is almost universally prohibited at conferences -- so how was this image generated?

This page contains a photo from a "Medicament assisted rehabilitation conference in Oslo" Photos are, very generally, explicitly prohibited in conferences. This is often because conferences include the presentation of unpublished data, but I am sure that there are also other reasons. I do realize that there doesn't seem to be any particularly secret information on the slideshow in this photo, but nonetheless I think that it should be removed in the absence of verification that permission was given by both the organizer and the presenter. Just because the photographer has willingly given away the copyright to this image, doesn't imply that the photo is not in very serious breach of academic conference ethics. I see people taking pictures and movies all the time at conferences, despite posted warnings, and I would hate to think that wikipedia gave anybodythe impression that it is acceptable to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.45.195 (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)