There was a bit of discussion popping up in my feeds about the act of curation and attributing the discoveries to the original work. Since this is something I tend to do more of here, rather than creating articles on how to do certain tasks, I find it extremely interesting.
Two of my favourites:
The problems with online attribution aren’t due to a lack of syntax: they’re due to the economics and realities of online publishing.
Marco Arment, I’m not a curator
But we should not delude ourselves for a moment into bestowing any special significance on this, because when we do this thing that so many of us like to call “curation” we’re not providing any sort of ontology or semantic continuity beyond that of our own whimsy or taste or desire. “Interesting things” or “smart things” are not rubrics that make the collection and dissemination of data that happens on the internet anything closer to a curatorial act;
Matt Langer, Stop Calling it Curation
Both of them refer to the Curators Code, which is aiming to codify the way we attribute our discoveries online to a set standard to make it easily identifiable whether we personally discovered it, or we discovered it through someone else.
Both Marco and Matt make exceptional arguments as to why this is a stupid idea, so I hope you go and read their posts in their entireity. I’m not sure how long the Curators Code has been active, but I find it interesting that the discussion of attributing discoveries has arisen after the rants of MG Siegler a few weeks past about the news outlets quoting the direct source and not giving him credit for breaking the original story.
What’s more important, the original source or the discover of the original source? 1