There is a big controversy swirling around regarding the AlwaysOn/Technorati Open Media 100 program. The program got off to a bad start with the dubbing of what later became "Pioneers" as "Founding Fathers", arousing the justifiable ire of many. But over and above that initial toe stub, they is a growing controversy about the purpose or meaning of such a list. Is it inherently elitist? Are there inevitably too many old, fat, white guys involved? What purpose does such a list serve? Or, turned around, whose interests are served?

These questions are valid. My hunch is that the primary application of the list, after the fact, anyway, will be to provide contacts for those outside the blogosphere trying to make sense of it. That means large corporations, journalists, analysts, and others who would like to be able to contact knowledgeable and authoratative individuals in order to ask them questions.

Treating it as an award misses the utility of the whole thing -- if there is any utility, in fact.

One of the problems I have with the program is the partitioning into the various categories -- Founding Fa... oops, Pioneers, Visionaries, etc. I would be happier if these offering names up would do so providing their own rationales, and through their own tags. This is another case where the taxonomy provided by the organizations involved may constrain the discussion in odd ways. For example, I don't think that the VCs behind the rise of Open Media deserve as much room on the pantheon as technogical innovators, the premier writers, or visionaries. So I am morally opposed to being forced to nominate a certain number in each of the prescribed categories.

But I don't think the development of such a list is inherently evil, and I applaud the premise of getting the blogosphere involved in it, even if the organizers have perhaps created a too constrained model for gathering inputs.

[tags: AOTechnorati100, OpenMedia, OpenMedia+100, blogging]