I've been linked to "Content Curation: Why Is The Content Curator The Key Emerging Online Editorial Role Of The Future?" which is relevant to a topic we had earlier about information overload.

At first I failed to see what's so new and special about the whole concept. It seems just like putting a fancy new term on something that many have already been doing, not only through social bookmarking and social news, but through specific blogs, and even directories (which existed for a long time).

It does I suppose go slightly further in terms of providing a precise definition: "A content curator is
someone who continually finds, groups, organizes and shares the best and most relevant content on a specific issue online." So relevancy to a very specific issue and continuity are emphasized, but still, that's not all that different from what people have already been doing.

What annoys me, though, is seeing in comments someone mention a content "creation vs. curation" debate. What debate? And why the dichotomy? The thing is this "content curation" can easily be considered a form of content creation as well. A compilation of links or other things is still content...

So, this article talks about a "content curator" as a new editorial profession which could become a "new" money making opportunity, so naturally there's an urge to jump on the bandwagon, saturate the market and create the same "information overload" problem all over again, except this time we'll be overloaded with compilations and references to information in addition to information itself..

But, this can't be avoided I guess, so before we "jump" on that bandwagon, it helps to actually understand what the hell are we supposed to do differently? How is "content curation" different from writing a blog on a specific topic or running some kind of an editorialized directory, for example? That part escapes me...