Marco doesn’t like the Curator’s Code:
First of all, readers aren’t going to learn what those symbols mean. The distinction between them is also unnecessary and will lead to more confusion: I’ve been running a hybrid articles-and-links blog here (↬DF) for a while, I wrote the function that added “via” links to billions of reblogged posts on Tumblr, and I didn’t even know the difference between “via” and “hat tip” until today.
Are we just sharing or are we curating?
My thoughts on this are that journalists often/always have been sharing/curating and yes, stealing content. My local newspapers have been taking content, inspirations from various sources, hardly ever attributing them. No one has been calling them out, because they are “the authority”. Only now, in the age of the ever-linkable internet, stories have become more findable and journalists are not getting paid comfy salaries for their work anymore this seems to be becoming a problem. So naturally the need to protect their source and work is one of the problems they are trying to solve.
This is one way to try to bring clarity into this mess, regulate it and create some sense. The other is to move advertising from a page-view model to a “pay-per-influence’ model. The source that influence will rise to the top, hopefully.
Pretty impressive website the Curator’s Code has, I must say. Tina is supporting the idea and the bookmarklet is a great implementation.