Since so much of new media/social media is so new, how exactly are one’s creditentials to be “vetted”? This is not trying to be snotty- I just want to know, in an industry that is only a few years old, how do we measure credibility?

For example, If I slam a piece of software to newbies because it doesn’t work for me, and share a more creative solution, does this make me wrong, because others use it just fine? Or am I simply “wrong”? I don’t think there are many black/white issues here. Infinite shades of grey to be sure.

I think you may have valid concerns, but like with everything else, the law of Caveat Emptor- let the buyer beware- rules. And so much of new media requires experimenting and tinkering- can we really be wrong even if we want to be? I am not sure that’s possible.

Are any of your presentations available for download?

And I think it’s important to note that if folks are saying things like, “you can create an MP3 file by using a Word document,” that is wrong and dangerous to folks who are new to the technology. But because someone pre-screens a speaker just means that they’re “worthy” by whatever process those folks use to screen them. And we’ve all been to events of every color and stripe where speakers were horrid no matter what the process they went through to speak.

Don’t get me wrong - I’ve run other open-source events like this and there simply are sessions/folks who are not exactly scintillating conversationalists or wonderful speakers. But the paradigm of allowing all to participate does tend to create a vibe/energy that can’t be matched when folks know any kind of selection process has taken place.

But I FULLY agree with Jason - there is value in both “un” and “regular” conference models. Any place genuine learning takes place is okay by me. Plus, I’m a huge fan of Tim (Bourquin) and was thrilled to learn I’ll be speaking at his next conference. Am I concerned it’s not an “un” conference? Not in the least! I’m honored to speak and know that if he chose me I’m in a very blessed group of folks who get to speak at a great event.

Without someone vetting the presenters, you run the genuine risk of having someone up on stage who’s simply wrong. You also run the risk of getting someone as a speaker who is there for the wrong reasons.

If someone gives a talk and tells (particularly) a newbie audience a fact that’s inaccurate, and the audience believes that information, they are harmed.

Other than that, I don’t think there’s an issue surrounding whether or not there is a sponsor or how many people attend, etc.

I know that the Bourquins didn’t seem particularly happy about the whole un-conference thing and it’s obvious why.

I think you stated accurately that there’s a place for what they do and a place for the un-conference. I also don’t believe that having sponsors makes any difference. If it’s a not-for-profit event, it should qualify as an un-conference.

The value of what the Bourquins do is that they do screen the speakers. They do all the organizing themselves and they take all the risks associated with running the event.

Of course, the Bourquins don’t pay the speakers either, which is possibly one reason why the lines are blurred here.