Free Membership

Enjoy http://www.sharemyphotos.info/e/K.gif

Some interesting points – but I think you and I would disagree on what “clique” means… I see clique as “exclusive” and groups as “inclusive” – certainly there are groups on Twitter.
But while I joined only 4 months ago, I didn’t find it to be lonely at all… I followed a few voices, then dropped into the public timestream, found a few more – started listening to their one-sided conversations, got interested in hearing the other side and added more…
I don’t think there really are “communities” defined by interest so much as people who have similar interests.
If you read my timeline, you’d find it as ecclectic as I am – and yes, while there are marketing, web 2.0, tech, design, and ad people, there are also moms, dads, doctors, teachers, journalists, students, and a healthy variety of other folk there.

I maintain as many online presences as you – and yet, I disagree that Twitter is “masturbatory’ because I don’t need a specific community to listen and talk to. Then again, I’m an information junkie – and I don’t think that anything one learns is only applicable to one field or endeavor.

As I say in my post for tomorrow morning, I believe in Humans: http://chrisbrogan.com/what-dataportabilityorg-wont-fix/

You’re great for hosting the conversation. Sorry I didn’t see it sooner, once again.

As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t question his motives, but rather the method.

I erred in my kneejerk reaction to the word “pack” – which I suspect I will be reliving for quite some time to come – but I think not in my assessment otherwise.

Innovators often wonder how it is that their projects stray so far from their original intent – I tend to believe it’s because they don’t really have the capacity to perceive the potential abuses nor believe that others are likely to abuse them. It’s an odd thing I’d attribute to the nobility (if you will) of the designer, and the common nature of mankind.

Didn’t know you were looking for it… rather surprises me at that!

It is good to know that I did give you credit correctly for the best of intentions – and that the confusion on the term ‘pack’ was 100% my error. Good to know there are no wolves, nor any other subtle ill intent!
Apparently, your geek cred is still utterly intact – although perhaps not your marketing cred ;)

That said – on lists…

I’m going to hazard a guess that you are approaching this from a true geek perspective – and value lists simply as a way of sorting data. From that perspective, lists aren’t only good, they’re rather inherently critical in understanding a thing.

But from a social perspective? Yep – lists are bad.
(and yes, this is strictly my opinion, not some pronouncement from on high – nor some divinely inspired statement.)

Why? Because there are only 2 statuses for someone when it comes to lists of people – “on” or “off”.

When it comes to lists that are recommendations, it gets worse, because there’s a value implied in being either on or off.
If you don’t mind, I’ll draw a parallel. Last week, the Academy Awards nominations were announced – and then commenced the analysis of who had “made the list” and who, notably, had not.
One of the issues with lists is that the person or people making them often have agendas.

Recently, I read an outdated, but still interesting, post by Rafe Needleman called the Newbie’s Guide to Twitter. http://www.webware.com/8301-1_109-9697867-2.html
At the end, there was a short list of “try these folks…”
Now that list didn’t bother me – because it was Rafe’s opinion. And I could weigh it against my opinions and how well those match.
If you had done a list, I would look at it and say “hm, Chris Brogan – how similar are our tastes? How likely am I to enjoy reading the folks on his list?”

But with a “group project” like an open wiki, what happens is that it becomes a list fraught with potential for abuse.

I suppose the best indicator or red flag for me is my own evil mind. My first thought upon seeing the wiki itself was “what’s to stop me from deleting everything? Or worse, from deleting specific things randomly? Or adding someone to a list they’d rather not be added to?” The answer, of course is my own conscience. But fortunately, I have a rather overdeveloped conscience, so the world is often spared my wickedness. Not so for many folk out there.

Even if a list is open to anyone including him/herself on it, there are issues. Let’s say I was to go and put my name on one of the lists that implied I had expertise where I do not. Would someone else feel compelled to remove me? Would they look at my name and laugh and say “what’s she doing on there?” Would they mock me publicly or only in private? Is there hubris inherent in putting my name on any list? How seriously would you take a list if you knew that a high percentage of those on it really had no experience whatsoever within that realm?

I could ramble on forever, I guess (by now, you’ve noticed that propensity for long-windedness in me… amazing that I can twitter at all!) But in the end, I wasn’t trying to imply “Oh that horrid Chris Brogan and others! How dare they try to put us all into boxes!” So much as I was being the prophetess of doom – and certainly not expecting that my little voice over here was being heard very far. I feel somewhat the mouse who roared.

I love your idea of starter packs – but there’s a bit of a difference between a randomly selected pack of cards, and a list of this nature. Firstly, no cards ever get offended that they weren’t included in a given pack, and secondly, that we people are so seldom as simple to categorize as Magic cards.

I don’t fault you at all for trying to do something nice for those who are trying to “hear” the conversation that is Twitter.
I just don’t think the implementation was workable.

Will everyone be included on the list? Of course not. But I think that’s why it was intended as a community-project. If so-and-so isn’t in the ’social media’ pack and you think they should be, then add them.

Have no idea how some see this as being a ‘popularity’ contest. Chris surely didn’t intend it as such.

As I named the site, let me explain the name:

Pack, like trading cards. Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starter_pack

I’m from the geeky world of Dungeons and Dragons and Magic: The Gathering. Magic had “starter packs” to get someone going in the game.

No wolves were considered in the making of these lists.

—

So, on the other topic, lists are bad? The intent, before it went anywhere (and boy, can you believe it’s only been less than 16 hours?) was to allow users to self-select or recommend (either was fine by my thinking) into groups that described why someone would follow them.

Now, as it’s a wiki, I’ve gone in to see who’s done most of the work on the “Identity” page, for instance. j.brotherlove, should that be accurate. Why? Not sure. That’s the page that worries me, for the record.

But let’s get back to lists. Lists are bad because…