This post could have also been title "Why are we trying to eat Wikipedia's lunch?"
I agree with Tyberius's answer. There are many benefits, particularly for fostering the community. Furthermore, I think it has been shown to work well, and is a logical extension of the question asking for software recommendations which I think a lot of people agree are important.
However, there are some potential pitfalls,
- The lists can degrade over time, either through poor quality answers or the answers becoming outdated. Other's have mentioned Awesome lists on github as a better alternative.
- The voting system is not designed for lists (the same is also true for recommendations).
- Who moderates and can make the lists?
As for point 1, I think it's just an unfortunate aspect of all encyclopedias so at least we aren't worse than that.
Point 2, we've been able to make the voting work with a very generous voting culture, it doesn't mean any answer is right but popular answers tend to rise to the top so that is still okay.
Point 3, perhaps we are setting a bad precedent. If the ultimate goal is to move away from these type of questions (I'm not saying it should be but this is in-line with other SEs), than closing future questions as "not focused" just because they aren't a founder may be frustrating. Also, in order to make a good list, presumably we would need to rigorously prune the answers. However, this can be tedious to get mods to delete poor quality answers.
I vote to keep them, but it's something to keep in mind. I suggest we look at Software Recommendations or elsewhere for advice.