I thought of “created” instead of “curated”, but IMO the importance of using a wiki is in the ongoing maintenance and continual gradual improvement, rather than the initial hit of creation. Also, projects such as Wikisource don’t even allow real brand new works, yet they certainly use the wiki methods effectively.

“Developed” or “maintained” are also OK by me.

Content. As if “content” just existed and someone needed to hand it over so it could be placed on a web page. “Content” is the hard part. Any fool can code a page, at least at the lowest quality level (I’ve got examples of my own mistakes at bad coding), and almost any fool can have an interesting idea and figure a way to make it at least somewhat appealing to an eager audience.

Few people can actually create compelling and interesting “content”, the actual words and sentences that draw us in, cause us to think, compell us to respond and act. For those of us with lesser skills than a Shakespeare or a Thomas Paine, participating in a community of people creating content can give us practice and help fill our gaps in ability or creativity.

But, along with Brent, I do have a problem with “curated” as well, it means more “overseen”, “assisted” or “managed” instead of created. Brent suggested “donated” or “invested”, both good suggestions. I’d like to add for consideration: “written”, “created”, “developed”, “produced”, “prepared”. I think your complaint is well-founded and your suggestion good, but the words need better precision–maybe this could be a community developed and approved term?