The theory goes that more people will abandon blogging and other ways of producing content in favour of becoming virtual guides to these sources. Twitter even encourages this sort of behaviour by only providing you 140 characters to provide just a sentence or a link & comment. Well, quite frankly, this sucks! (there I said it!) Has nobody ever heard the phrase “too many chiefs and not enough Indians”? Why is pointing at content better than producing it?
Content curation done by a trusted expert has the potential to bypass lack of trust by presenting information along with direct links to the original sources, and commentary that can easily be validated and confirmed by facts and data presented in those sources.
Friday afternoon there was an impromptu panel at the Samsung Blogger Lounge on the future of content creation. During this session, we took a look at the key to effective content curation and how it's evolved beyond simple automation.
Bill Keller describes HuffPost's offerings as nothing more than "celebrity gossip, adorable kitten videos, posts from unpaid bloggers and news reports from other publications." I wonder what site he's been looking at. Not ours, as even a casual look at HuffPost will show. Even before we merged with AOL, HuffPost had 148 full-time editors, writers, and reporters engaged in the serious, old-fashioned work of traditional journalism.
Guillaume Decugis, the CEO of Scoop.it: Blogging is challenged as a social connector and on content creation. But the appetite for expression has never been so strong. Morten Myrstad, creator and curator: Curation channels is increasing the distribution of blog posts, not the opposite! And first, the content that people are curating, have to be created.
The end result is that we have governed, monitored content that isn’t curated. It’s just there. Facebook continues to take everything you give it, but provide little in return. It’s time for an intervention, and it’s beyond time for Facebook to stop biting the hand that feeds it.
If you aggregating blog posts and tweets on a given subject, but not exercising editorial control or influence, let’s just call that content aggregation. If you’re putting serious effort, vision, perspective, and consistency into choosing, arranging, and expressing a point of view through the act of assembling the collection, you just might be doing real curation.
What's a curator? Isn't it a musty, bespectacled old sort who lives in a museum? Not any more. A "SXSW" panel on content curation gave us a punchy Monday discussion on the meaning of curation in the modern sense.
I see curation as vital part of journalism but curation on its own is not journalism. Curation is one of the things that journalists can do well because they know their subject areas well. And curation provides a valuable supporting function to a reporter's beat.
Here comes another chant for publishers to reassure themselves with. 'Curation is king' is becoming a cliche so quickly I probably don't have to explain it. The (Hear hear! RT @tondelooijer Blijft een goede blogpost: Let's stop this 'Curation is King' crap right now http://bit.ly/ce02cK)
Warmest congratulations to the Egyptian people, whose truly grassroots revolution has reminded the world what political action is supposed to look like. Although the work is far from done, and reconstituting a government by the people and for the people is perhaps the more difficult phase, it is right that they, and the world, should take a moment to reflect on a job well done.
Some are using that moment to praise the social media tools used by some of the protesters, and the role the internet played in fueling the revolution. While it's plain that these things were part of the process, I think the mindset of the online world creates a risk of overstating their importance, and elevating something useful, even powerful, to the status of essential. The people of Egypt made use of what means they had available, just as every oppressed people has in history.
Twitter and Facebook are indeed useful tools, but they are not tools of revolution — at least, no more than Paul Revere's horse was. People are the tools of revolution, whether their dissent is spread by whisper, by letter, by Facebook, or by some means we haven't yet imagined. What we, and the Egyptians, should justly be proud of, is not just those qualities which set Egypt's revolution apart from the last hundred, but those which are fundamental to all of them. (so now TechCrunch has jumped on the "hey, Twitter and Facebook didn't overthrow Mubarak" bandwagon: http://is.gd/OQmnsw)