My point is that applying a word to something (in this case defining “posting on twitter” as “curation”) does not make it so. I might as well call myself “curator of a collection of spores, molds, and fungi,” when in fact I simply need to clean my refrigerator. I’m aware that there is a trend afoot to apply the notion of curation to various digital collections, but I’m of the opinion that this does a disservice to the world’s actual curators. And calling someone who upkeeps a twitter account, any twitter account, a “curator” does is a slap in the face to anyone who has ever had a claim, no matter how tenuous, to that particular job title. So, yes, I can read the article, but I’m not required to agree with its inanity.
Please validate your account to contribute content.
Preview Your Response
“Curator” is literally “one who takes care of something”. If the national Twitter account is being given to different people, then technically they are taking care of it in a way, and are technically curators. Hell, cleaning out the fridge is technically acting as a curator since it comes from the Latin for “To care”. Of course it’s not the same thing as the curator for a museum, an art gallery, or an archive. But the problem is that instead of focusing on what the word actually means, you’re focusing more on the current social construct of what the word entails. And, obviously, the creators of the program didn’t intend it to be used in that sense.