In regards to the issues relating to Web 2.0, i.e. consumer-driven content, 
markets, and so on, I could write a book on this.  Howsever, there are a few 
points that I would like to put up for discussion.  These would be 
'emancipation and choice'/delegation, the role of public resources, and the 
commons.  I will try to place all of these in context with curation.

This may be a US matter, but since deregulation of telephony, there has been 
an encroachment by the private sector in regards to fragmentation and 
'choice' in public resources/utilities.  In saying this, I want to suggest 
that I want to draw a possible analogy to cultural resurces as well.  In 
this fragmentation, multiple carriers compete for the individual's business 
(and mindshare, which is more important to this argument), claiming beter 
efficiency, service, and so on.  This haqs happened in energy, telephony, 
health, and many other sectors.  

The result is that there has been a systemic delegation of administrative 
tasks to the consumer/resident.  The derivative result is that the consumer 
is performing unpaid labor for the utility, institution, and so on.  Another 
derivative result is the saturation by choice, which research is currently 
discovering that may not lead to distress in the individual.  Related to the 
first point is the release of administrative tasks by upper facilitators so 
that they can do their 'work'.

My concern in curation in Web 2.0, which I believe that SpacePlace is 
hinting at, is that predominantly user-driven content in general 
technological contexts may delegate intent, and therefore responsibility, 
away from the creators and let it rest with a mass consciousness.  

This is a sticky argumnent, as it is unpopular to suggest any restriction 
upon networked media, or on the capitalist/democratic system.  I think there 
is a difference between imposition of sweeping master narratives and shaping 
curatorial/contextual responsibility for a given body of work(s).  

In some ways, the emancipation of the consumer is to subsequently reenslave 
them under the delegated workload of the institution/corporation (note that 
I am conflating issues with those last two words...)

For example, there are a couple projects happening in Second Life, something 
that I am investigating at the moment.  In addition, I am also curating a 
MySpace exhibition of, in essence, data-identities as art, with a 
potentially decentralized curatorial model where anyone could concievable be 
a curator.

A problem here (one that I don't see at ZKM) is that the user of a 
Myspace.com site's content could be in totality property of Rupert Murdoch 
and NewsCorp under the User Agreement, let alone the advertising 
bombardments.  Under Second Life as with There, the user has the opportunity 
to create items for sale in the alternate world, simultaneously creating 
capitalist potential for them and a value-added resource for the provider, 
ON SPEC, while the user is paying for the service.

I realize that there is a service being provided, but on the other hand, I 
have questions about creating value-added resources without compensation or 
recognition.  There are differences between ZKM and Second Life, to be 
certain, but it begs the same questions.  

Should there be common resources that are given for the common weal?  
ABsolutely, and this is what I feel most cultural istitutions do.  In 
addition, this is why I believe in national telecom, education, power, 
transportation and energy utilities, even to the point of (as Chomsky 
suggests) some utility.  In addition, I also feel that the inscription of 
agendas of power in the individual by private interests (note the 
confiscation Dutch Bavaria Beer lederhosen at the World Cup, as well as the 
Guggenheim "Art of the Motorcycle" exhibit - again a conflation to an end) 
are disturbing.  I believe that there should be a wide mix of programs that 
address contemporary issues, but also a lot of curation is about 
didacticism.  

There are four issues at play - capitalist democracy, cultural commonwealth, 
institutional responsibility, and free will.  Hoenstly, I don't know how to 
resolve them without imposing regulation on something or someone.  
Fortunately, this will not be for me to decide. 

I am generally against close interaction between cultural institutiona and 
the private sector (and their derivative functions, like delegation of 
labor). But as mirrors of culture, I also realize that this must also become 
evident in cultural programming.  This includes user-driven curation, which 
I think needs close attention to context and intent on order to create a 
strong work.

I also understand the reality of the world at large, and the dominance of 
capital. So, my utopia is far away.  

However, in saying this, I feel that while the exploration of Web 2.0 
practices like user-driven content and programming needs to be explored, we 
also need to be aware of the cultural context from which is comes and hold 
it circumspect while doing so.  In this way, it's my feeling that we can try 
to address the sociocultural issues of this emeging milieu and try to act 
responsibly in creating works that strive toward a cultural commonwealth for 
the online and larger societies.

I hope I have not rambled on too long, and I also hope that, regardless of a  
few obvios holes/conflations, that my argument generally holds together.

best,
Patrick