Why curation matters

The Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges wrote a story about the Library of Babel. His library was composed of a near-infinite labyrinth of hexagonal rooms, which contained every possible combination of a 416-page book, randomly sorted. Yes, somewhere in the library was every useful and brilliant possible book. But in reality the library was endless and entirely useless. Without curation, or aggregation, or filtering, the Internet would be such a Borgesian nightmare.

The Library of Babel contains every brilliant book. It also contains an infinite quantity of bollocks. That ratio feels familiar.

Abundance was supposed to liberate us from gatekeepers. Instead, it created twenty minutes of scrolling before we watch the same programme again. App stores contain a tool for every imaginable task and still make a trusted shortlist feel like rescue. B2B resource centres proudly host 600 assets, arranged with the navigational sensitivity of a municipal skip.

Curation is not censorship with nicer typography. It is judgement made useful: this matters now, these things belong together, that pile can be ignored. Removing choice can increase agency when the remaining choices become intelligible.

The objection is obvious. Curators have tastes, incentives and blind spots. Good. Make those visible. A neutral pile is not neutral either; it rewards whatever is newest, loudest or best optimised for the sorting mechanism. At least a selection can explain itself.

Stop measuring collections by how much they contain. Ask what decision they help somebody make. A dashboard with another twelve metrics is not more informative if nobody knows where to look. A website with every possible case study is not helpful if the buyer cannot find one resembling their life.

Storage says, “We kept everything.” Curation says, “We took responsibility.”