New Guide Recognizes the Value of Good Curation
Media algorithms and artificial intelligence are pretty good at feeding us content we want (and lots of it), but not necessarily information we need. On the other hand, human curators with a sense of good conduct and transparent processes can provide us information we need (even if we didn’t know), but don’t get the public acclaim or policy uptake that many a viral musing from an ephemeral celebrity may see.
To redress that, The People’s Case for Curators offers the public the framework of how public-good curation of data and news happens, detailing the principles involved and allowing everyday people to appreciate the effort of separating informational wheat from chaff. It accomplishes that through a neat bit of curation itself, collecting quotes and wisdom from the curators themselves.
Those curators – research professionals, editors, specialty journalists, research integrity officers, and librarians – all labor under the mantra that “knowledge doesn’t curate itself,” and as the guide concludes, “it is in all of our interests that those who do [curate] are visible and valued.”
The 11-page guide was released today by Sense About Science, a UK-based group promoting public interest in sound science and evidence, and Sage, the academic publisher and parent of Social Science Space.
In an age when algorithms and Ai are essentially a black box, understanding the processes of how we get information equals the value of the information itself. As Wendy Sadler, a senior lecturer in science communication at Cardiff University, told the report authors, “You should almost put as much effort into communicating the processes of science and publishing to people as the science itself. Scientists aren’t beyond bias – transparency is what’s important.”
“Rather than thinking about catchy headlines that aren’t evidence based, thinking about where that information is coming from is crucial,” adds Sage’s associate director of research integrity, Adya Misra. “Knowing whether it is an opinion or commentary from a small group, or evidence from large multinational studies, can help transform the ways we interpret scientific findings.”
The guide breaks down the elements of public-good curation into five areas: encouraging curiosity; providing skills and knowledge to aid understanding; identifying and inventorying source material; validating and evaluating information; and inviting questioning.
“Public-good curators don’t want to tell us what to think,” the guide intones. “They want us to have the best access to a range of information which can help us make up our own minds.”
The guide concludes by calling for a campaign to stand up for public-good curation, whether that’s having individuals share the guide itself or the curators discussing the elements of good curation in their professional circles or to policy makers.
