Posted August 7, 2015on:
Judging from the WordPress notifier, my reflection, Lazy curation is not curation, resonated with quite a few people. It helped that a few key tweeps passed the message along by tweet-sharing it.
I am guessing that paper.li algorithms take into account the number of hits a link gets because I serendipitously discovered that the blog entry was listed in at least two of those e-papers (I did not bother to find out if there were more).
One was as a leading article.
Another was as one of the articles in a Technology section of a different paper.li space. This was an example of how auto-curation tools are not yet smart enough to categorize based on nuance.
The irony was not lost on me: My reflection against auto-curation tools was offered more than once by auto-curation tools. I wonder if their owners review content or reflect on their practice.
I share this not to embarrass the owners of the e-papers. If their owners had any control and chose to publish the recommendations intact, then they were brave to provide an alternative view. But I wish they would reconsider which bandwagon to ride on. They are not creating and what they are doing is not curating if they do not review and reflect.