I apologise if I seemed a bit harsh on "curation" and its derivatives, but it's difficult for me to see clearly after my eyes go all red on seeing so much BS/buzzwords and then glaze over with hate for the spin merchants or whoever exposes us to such seemingly anti-rational gobbledegook. And maybe as a a result I did only make a cursory review of the Scoop-it thing - but hey, I could probably be forgiven for that, because my patience had already been sorely tested by that stage.
In any event, it seems to me that the emperor still has no clothes despite my having spent some considerable cognitive surplus on the subject and consuming a lot of aspirins in the process. Maybe it's just me or my eyesight that can't see/understand it, but it seems that you have not yet been able to provide sufficiently coherent definition or fact to be able to establish whether the term "curation" and its derivatives are anything more than undefined hyped-up BS buzzwords that an implied 97% of
scientists bloggers
believe to be true.(A logical fallacy - an appeal to the consensus.)
That latter bit is in reference to your:
...it seems enough people find use in the idea...
- which is an implicit appeal to the consensus.
Maybe the earth
is still flat, and maybe Hitler
was grossly misunderstood, and maybe eugenics/Communism/Fascism/[insert religio-political ideology or pseudoscience here]
is the way ahead, and maybe there
is anthropogenic global warming, and maybe there
are fairies at the bottom of the garden, but I remain incredulous regarding these things until they are able to be substantiated as unequivocally true.
Oh, and Jim Slater or the Enron guys weren't really all such con-men as history makes out to be.
And don't get me started again on Maslow's apparently disproven theories or his concept of "self-actualisation"
Or the pseudoscience of phrenology.
And please don't
ad hominem me for referring to people with limited reading ability and/or low reading age. That's just a plain wrong thing to do, and another logical fallacy. What I referred to was quite valid, and I can substantiate it.
My training in written marketing communications taught me to always aim for a reading age of preferably 11, but 14 at most for media communications (using the Flesch–Kincaid readability test). This is not cynical, it is based on pragmatic research:
(From Wikipedia Flesch–Kincaid readability test)
The F-K formula was first used by the US Army for assessing the difficulty of technical manuals in 1978 and soon after became the Department of Defense military standard. The commonwealth of Pennsylvania was the first state in the US to require that automobile insurance policies be written at no higher than a ninth grade level of reading difficulty, as measure by the F-K formula. This is now a common requirement in many other states and for other legal documents such as insurance policies.
Flesch Reading Ease scores:
- 90.0–100.0: easily understandable by an average 11-year-old student.
- 60.0–70.0: easily understandable by 13- to 15-year-old students.
- 0.0–30.0: best understood by university graduates.
(Mind you, I have come across not a few university graduates who seemed to have been particularly challenged in this regard.)
My training is to use the F-K Readibility Scoring method in most of my writing/documentation. For example, this post/comment of mine is approx 39%, so it's not likely to be fully understood by a number of readers and who may well even have lost interest and stopped reading before this point. I have already had one person in the DCF comment that I am "...the man who writes the longest and most convoluted posts in the entire forum". I think this was from the same person as used a logical fallacy without realising it and, when I mentioned it, seemed to think it was a matter of opinion as to whether it was a fallacy.(!)
It's always likely to be much easier to read some sharp and simple notes than it is to read someone's articulated thinking. Articulating your thinking (as opposed to an opinion) or reading someone's articulated thinking requires
thinking and work. But that didn't stop me from at least
trying to understand what it was that you were writing about in
this thread, however difficult I found it. I figured you would not have made the effort to write what you did if you had been uninterested in communicating
your articulated thinking on the subject. I really appreciate that you did that.