Question
How is the word curator being used or abused to describe the aggregation of content in social networks?
Answer
There are two source metaphors to think about: museum curators and grounds curators (people who maintain paths and trails, or gardens).
In both cases, somebody is putting a lot of intelligence into the organization of content, to create a story that can transform you. A good museum curator can arrange (say) the works of French impressionists in a way that really gets across the patterns of influence and historical development, and who innovated vs. who imitated.
Or you could arrange the paintings alphabetically by painter and then chronologically.
Ditto with gardens/paths/golf courses. In cricket, a great pitch curator can carefully create a pitch that creates a very interesting game. Or a dead one that creates a dull game. A garden can be a tantalizing blend of mystery, exploration and magic. Or it can be a French/Persian exercise in austere Euclidean geometry.
The point is, curation is a creative act, not just an act of preservation (though that element is there too, though it is better described by the word 'archivist'). Yes, you have to trim hedges and sweep garden paths. In musuems you have to keep an eye on which paintings need restoration and when the exhibit is getting dull and could use a fresh narrative perspective. In information, yes, the curatorial class needs to keep an eye on where metadata is insuffienct etc.
But the creativity is central. Otherwise curation is reduced to archiving, which is like embalming for information. It is where information goes to die. What Yishan Wong, in another answer somewhere called the WORN model: "write once, read never." Too many services that adopt the curation label are actually WORN information embalming/mummification services.
I personally think only individuals can be truly creative, not groups, so I agree with Alex that mere social aggregation is not curation. A group can help do some great curation, led by a creative director (just like a symphony orchestra conductor is needed to create a great performance), but an uncoordinated group can only do somewhat mechanistic types of faux-curation work.
But overall, I basically don't like the word at all, and think it should just be dropped from computer science/social software.
In both cases, somebody is putting a lot of intelligence into the organization of content, to create a story that can transform you. A good museum curator can arrange (say) the works of French impressionists in a way that really gets across the patterns of influence and historical development, and who innovated vs. who imitated.
Or you could arrange the paintings alphabetically by painter and then chronologically.
Ditto with gardens/paths/golf courses. In cricket, a great pitch curator can carefully create a pitch that creates a very interesting game. Or a dead one that creates a dull game. A garden can be a tantalizing blend of mystery, exploration and magic. Or it can be a French/Persian exercise in austere Euclidean geometry.
The point is, curation is a creative act, not just an act of preservation (though that element is there too, though it is better described by the word 'archivist'). Yes, you have to trim hedges and sweep garden paths. In musuems you have to keep an eye on which paintings need restoration and when the exhibit is getting dull and could use a fresh narrative perspective. In information, yes, the curatorial class needs to keep an eye on where metadata is insuffienct etc.
But the creativity is central. Otherwise curation is reduced to archiving, which is like embalming for information. It is where information goes to die. What Yishan Wong, in another answer somewhere called the WORN model: "write once, read never." Too many services that adopt the curation label are actually WORN information embalming/mummification services.
I personally think only individuals can be truly creative, not groups, so I agree with Alex that mere social aggregation is not curation. A group can help do some great curation, led by a creative director (just like a symphony orchestra conductor is needed to create a great performance), but an uncoordinated group can only do somewhat mechanistic types of faux-curation work.
But overall, I basically don't like the word at all, and think it should just be dropped from computer science/social software.