Am I curating yet? Drawing the lines between creation, aggregation and curation

by Ian Greenleigh on June 11, 2010 · 8 comments

The tweet below sums up what I suspect many of us feel about the debate surrounding creation, aggregation, and curation.

I think the word "curate" needs some curation.... RT @burtherman: CEO of @magnify: "Content is king" is dead. Now, "curation is king." #iwnyJune 10, 2010 6:18 pm via TweetDeck


This might sound strange, but I know I’m a fan of curation even though I’m not quite sure what it means—anymore. I thought I knew, until I started digging deeper and deeper, trying to locate the line in the sand between what I thought was curation, and the ostensibly less creative/valuable/fair (take your pick) process of aggregation. So where is the line? Can there ever be a standard, accepted definition for curation? I think it’s close to universally recognized that Google News, for instance,  has been in the aggregation box. But is that still true given this latest development (see tweet below)?

Love this GNews -- it's not curation by select few, recommendation, crowdsourced aggregation -- but combo of all those: http://bit.ly/dqee2UJune 11, 2010 12:59 am via web


If you think, as I do, that the mere act of editing adds value, does Google’s new test of human selection vs. algorithmic feed pass from the realm of “mere” aggregation into curation territory? How much value do we have to add before we call ourselves curators?

Brian Solis thinks that filtering for relevance is one of the best ways we can pare down the constant flux of our real-time social streams into digestible, attention-worthy content packages:

But relatively simple ways of meeting these basic filtering requirements have been around since social media came into the mainstream. Brian seems to be saying that it takes something else, an additional element, to make that leap from aggregation to curation. And when even Brian struggles to articulate what that secret sauce is, it’s safe to say that the question is nowhere near resolution.

Robert Scoble defines the curator as

… an information chemist. He or she mixes atoms together in a way to build an info-molecule. Then adds value to that molecule.

Even if we don’t quite know what it is, we know we want it.

Consider this:

Throughout this post, I’ve featured what I see as germane bits of conversations from around the Web. I’ve used them to illustrate the questions I’m asking, and I’ve added my personal take or reaction to each. It’s pretty clear, to me at least, that I’m therefore engaging in curation.

But what if I did this? (Click here and come right back)

Would I then be a curator or an aggregator? Was the act of selecting this particular grouping of content and then presenting it all in one place enough to clear the gap between the two? I don’t have the answer.

But my point—yeah, I have one—is that we seem to be staggeringly far from the answer, despite our best attempts. Maybe it’s one of the core issues we are trying to address with curation, exponential information growth, that is ultimately keeping us from agreeing on its definition.

Special thanks to @robinsloan for creating Blackbird Pie. The tool was exactly what I needed for this post.

{ 6 trackbacks }

Unobtrusive pop-up surveys for your blog? Try KISSinsights
June 21, 2010 at 3:33 am
Curation: Definition before innovation?
June 24, 2010 at 3:20 am
Informācijas kuratori | nombre.lv
July 21, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Content & Curation: An Epic Poem : Incisive.nu
July 22, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Curation, attention deficit and the exaflood
August 8, 2010 at 10:12 pm
The past, present and future of content curation
August 13, 2010 at 4:52 am

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Clinton Forry June 11, 2010 at 2:57 pm

Nice post! This is a favorite topic of mine, for certain.

I don’t think we are too far off when it comes to settling on a definition. I think what makes the situation a bit blurry is the infinite ways that the final product of curation manifests itself. [e.g. a Twitter feed, blog, podcast, YouTube playlist, etc.]

Crowning things as kings or having them pining for the fjords is a bit too exclusive. It is more of a symbiotic relationship. Curation needs content. Sometimes content needs the things that only curation can provide [context, comment, and corollaries] to fully come to life. Those very actions qualify as all three: creation, aggregation and curation.

Here is a blog post I wrote about this very topic last November: http://www.content-ment.com/2009/11/curation-versus-aggregation.html
Clinton Forry´s last blog ..Attack of the Rotten Content My ComLuv Profile

2 Ian Greenleigh June 12, 2010 at 2:32 am

All three? Uh-oh. I think you just blew my mind. In any case, you bring up a good point: We may be dealing with an artificially-imposed set of distinctions.

Throughout writing this, I kept thinking of modern art. Every once in a while, even the most cultured art lover comes across something that they question as to whether it fits in the art “bucket”. But why not just say it’s all art and call it a day? This still leaves room for bad art, just as there certainly can be bad curation, creation and aggregation.

Really appreciate you lending your two cents here, Clinton. Cheers.

Leave a Comment

CommentLuv Enabled

Previous post:

Next post:

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes