I totally understand that poetry is a lost and underappreciated art form, so people hating on it doesnt phase me. I even disagree with a majority of the "poets" out there who insist that poetry must rhyme and be in a standardized form. I can usually tell from use of a specific word or lack of precision and clarity in writing how long someone has spent on poetry, because I have spent years working on my own. And while it might be less time spent than on a short story, what confuses me is why my poetry earns more than a huge article that took me 12 hours to write. The payout then has less to do with the evidence or proof of work, and more to do with how much people see worth in the work.
my idea of curating is showing the people who are less talented, who have less access to tech and education, that their work has value. what i also try to do is educate as i go along. drop an article about html, sources, whatever. if someone does not understand the difference between copy/paste and plagiarism, i tell them. this is one thing i think that the community is failing to do; helping the people who are coming here with english as a second language and trying to post. there are some truly sincere people who just dont understand what curie requires. and I don't see any long articles (hint hint) defining what "proof of work" entails, examples of how to cite correctly, links to html.
actually i have meant to do that for a long time.... hmmm.
I call this the huck finn measurement of good poetry :-)