Get Started for FREE
Sign up with Facebook Sign up with X
I don't have a Facebook or a X account
 Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scoop.it!
It's clear that content curation is increasingly being talked about as an important role for learning professionals (in the context of self-provisioned learning, scaffolding, learing environment de... Via Robin Good 
|
Scoop.it!
Amanda Bell, grammar school principle looks at content curation today and feels barrier to entry is nonexistent and may be hampering our ability to find information that has any depth and may not be accurate. She worries that this will not be good especially for young people who are just starting out beginning to learn about the world.
My input:
I say, curation is a news delivery system for those who have already found their trusted sources and a research tool for those who have not. We're at the beginning stages on content curation, cream always rises to the top. I am definitely of the opinion that those who are driven to learn and understand something will delve deeper to find the truth no matter what.
What do you think?
Excerpt:
In an article posted by Popova about Eli Pariser's new book, The Filter Bubble: Algorithm vs Curator & the Value of Serendipity, she asks whether it is a good thing that the web filters content for us.
It can be argued that old media (newspapers, radio, television) have always been selective and in more recent times their reach has spread beyond a single city or country. In fact, there has been global sanitising of the media networks' news headlines owing to the immediacy of access to information (including each other's information) thanks to effective and fast new communication technologies.
The question here, however, is whether the role of curator is any more sophisticated in these online contexts than the old media position of editor.
Via janlgordon
|
The thing that amazes me most when it comes to what is supposedly "news and content curation" on platforms like Scoop.it, is that some of the most popular and trafficked channels have nothing to do with curating a topic for a specific audience.
Why? Because if you look at the supposed "curation" done on these channels, it is nothing but simple and often very superficial picking and unrestrained sharing of links with absolutely no concern for checking, verifying or let alone reading what is being posted.
This is how I long lost trust for many such curators. Because they are literally doing the opposite of what a true content curator should do: vet, verify, analyze, explore, check, add, inform, contextualize and reference.
In this light, I am not actually despising their work, because without them even realizing it, they are slowly creating the best opportunity and conditions for whoever does quality curation to shine a million times brighter.
As noise-generators they provide tremendous opportunity to those who know for real how to filter noise out.
Catherine Lombardozzi writes: "Filtering is an early step in the curation process, but a critical one.
Our learners count on us to cut through the noise and find the most useful materials to support their learning.
If they find that we have collated material that is inaccurate, out-dated, or relatively useless, they’ll go back to using their own search methodologies for finding materials, and our attempts to support them will be for naught."
And I must holeheartedly agree with her about the importance for curators, to be true, effective filters.
In this article, she offers some valuable guidelines and suggestions to help anyone interested in curation and in learning how to become an effective filter.
Rightful. 7/10
Full article: http://learningjournal.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/the-curators-filters/
(Image credit: Polarizing filter - Shutterstock)