Wait, hear me out. This is not a joke question.
List-building websites with rankings, like Demolistic, have the potential to be very similar to SO. If the list items can have descriptions, and justifications, the similarity becomes even closer.
closed as not constructive by XMLbog, BalusC, Steven A. Lowe, The Anti-Santa, waiwai933 Nov 4 '10 at 4:30
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
There are two different purposes served by a list-building site and the type of Q&A that the Stack Exchange Network operates off of. It's because of this that I don't really think that there's anything which can be learned that will actually be put to good use here.
Q&A is around to answer questions and solve problems. What is intended is that when someone has a question, we have the comprehensive answer. Our own facilities are not very conducive towards hosting lists: we have a hard limit of 30 answers on a page per question, and the measure of rating lists conflicts with how votes are used for the rest of the site. To top it off, as a community we fail to build comprehensive lists when they're asked for; people only provide options which they know and no one works together to actually create a complete repository. It's a stark contrast against the more authoritative Q&A where people do direct their efforts.
List-building websites usually address the needs of lists. They probably won't give limits to the visibility of items, drastically improving the actual yield when reading a list and reducing the number of duplicates. They don't have to worry about normal Q&A that is in conflict with the ratings/positionings on the lists. And in being dedicated to building good repositories, people are probably more encouraged to actually keep the lists up-to-speed, without worrying about the constant updates overwhelming new content.
Both kinds of sites do have one thing in common: they want to provide what you as a user are looking for. The approaches are different; Q&A attempts a direct answer to problems, while lists are an indirect collection of answers hoping to solve multiple problems.
The root issue is, the Stack Exchange engine is miserable at handling lists. Maintaining a good collection of lists is not really an easy task (proven by our lack of dedication towards it), and trying to add that to Stack Exchange is just overwhelming on top of all the Q&A we already work on. Our mission on the Stack Exchange Network is to make the internet a better place; building sub-par lists is not going to accomplish that, and going further than that is steering away from the Q&A. And as a Q&A network, we really shouldn't steer away from Q&A.
Lists aren't desirable here, for the reasons covered in http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/ :
Bottom line, you can't learn anything from a list. And our mission most of all is learning.