"Curation" feels a lot like reporting

Before the Internet, information flowed by word of mouth, through phone calls and memos, in books and by telegraph, in closing arguments and on TV. The job of a reporter was to sift through the information being generated by people with the power to affect other people's lives and to distill it into stories that explained what people were doing and why it mattered. Obviously, there are other types of reporting - travel, sports, etc., that are less concerned with the halls of power, but the idea of distilling information remains the same: a tour of Tuscany in 5,000 words or a recap of last night's double-header baseball game.

Even as reporters distilled the information they got from their notes, editors - especially crabby ones - worked to distill it further, whether through better story organization or by cutting extraneous information that didn't serve the narrative (or fit the page). Editors also curated the pages of their publications or contents of broadcasts by deciding which news mattered, which fit that day, what was the story to play first and which one needed to be held for more reporting.

Which is why I don't agree with the statement in a recent Newspaper Death Watch post about the revolution that is curation. Here's what Paul Gillin writes:

All of a sudden, “curation” is one of the hottest words in the Web 2.0 world. That’s because it’s an idea that addresses a problem humans have never confronted before: too much information. In the process, it’s creating some compelling new ways to derive value from content.

 Never confronted? The basic function of the brain is to curate information to make sense of what's going on around us. It's an idea that we've confronted from the start, although the Internet does demand that we develop new methods for curating information to ensure the important stuff isn't lost in a sea of inanity. Indeed, good curation by good curators (good reporting?) might find stories we'd never be exposed to had the Internet not offered us the glimpse.

Gillin's post goes on to talk about a search tool he's invested in that is supposed to make online curating easier.

The more things change....

In what seems to be a case of creeping professionalism, Wikipedia plans to impose an editorial review process before information can be published about living people. Michael Snow, chairman of the Wikipedia board, told the New York Times:

“We are no longer at the point that it is acceptable to throw things at the wall and see what sticks ... There was a time probably when the community was more forgiving of things that were inaccurate or fudged in some fashion — whether simply misunderstood or an author had some ax to grind. There is less tolerance for that sort of problem now.”

The decision comes in response to several well publicized hoaxes - but also in recognition of Wikipedia's increasing influence as a primary online source. Again, from the Times:

The new feature, called “flagged revisions,” will require that an experienced volunteer editor for Wikipedia sign off on any change made by the public before it can go live. Until the change is approved — or in Wikispeak, flagged — it will sit invisibly on Wikipedia’s servers, and visitors will be directed to the earlier version.

-snip-

Under the current system, it is not difficult to insert false information into a Wikipedia entry, at least for a short time. In March, for example, a 22-year-old Irish student planted a false quotation attributed to the French composer Maurice Jarre shortly after Mr. Jarre’s death. It was promptly included in obituaries about Mr. Jarre in several newspapers, including The Guardian and The Independent in Britain. And on Jan. 20, vandals changed the entries for two ailing senators, Edward M. Kennedy and Robert C. Byrd, to report falsely that they had died.

10 things I like about you

Should newsrooms operate on the star system? Well, they do. So maybe the better question is, how does a newsroom create a star system that doesn't snuff out fresh talent, reward editor's pets, or excuse lazy editing?

One way is to remember that the quality of the stars generally reflects the qualities favored by the editors. Steven A. Smith offers his list of 10 qualities that make a star journalist: heart, intellectual curiosity, fearlessness, fear, patience, skepticism, a less-than-empathetic personality, adaptability, quiet leadership and disrespect of authority.

Smith expounds on each. It's worth a read.