Bud the Teacher

    I’m noticing a proliferation of niche groups emerging in the edu’sphere — groups of young folks, groups of women, etc.  Something about this is rubbing me the wrong way — but I can’t quite put my finger on what it is. 
    I certainly admire the time and effort that people are putting into helping others find their way in the forest that is the Internet.  But is their enough added value in these different subgroups, particularly among bloggers that are already networked,  that makes their existence an asset rather than a collection of subdivisions, new walls keeping people separate?  At what point does joining a group mean closing a door, rather than opening one?  Or does it ever mean that at all?  (I think that it does, sometimes.)  Does the creation of lots of new groups lead to a further formalization of these spaces that are informal learning places?  Are we perpetuating old ways of doing things in new spaces?
    I imagine there’ll be some folks agitated by the questions, and because I’ve "named" some groups.   Please don’t misunderstand me; I don’t mean to demean — I’m generally curious.  I know that Stephen Downes‘ posting on groups and networks (here’s but one of several really interesting pieces on the subject) has been rattling around in my brain, and it’s certainly not as simple as "groups bad."  But I feel, um, weird, for lack of a better word, about lots of new groups forming up.
    Maybe the groups’ value, particularly in a world that equates authority with titles and memberships and other foolish whatnot, is to simply exist in name so that people can say, "Look, this person must know what they’re talking about, because they’re a member of a group!"
      What’s your take?