All these "awesome list of ..." maybe means that there is a need for a site like Yahoo in the 90's which tried to catalogize internet in a hierarchical list-of-lists manner.
The problem with those kind of sites is that the site owners try to game the ranking system.
If they do any tempering, expel them.
This requires a rich person to pay them, or a community to motivate them, which gives the super-power to an agreeable, but fair BDFL.
Also maybe GitHub needs a "list of stuff" category, so these lists of things don't muddle search results and conversely can be searched for easily. Curated lists of links are generally quite useful and putting it all in a public vcs with a pull request infrastructure makes it easy to contribute.
Indeed, Github should find a solution for this. I didn't care much about Github stars but recently I noticed they're being required in various scenarios, for example some CDN require a certain number of Github stars to include a library [1]
[1] https://github.com/cdnjs/cdnjs/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#b...
Simple disproof: a list of everything is not more useful than the most useful thing, because navigating the list has a cost.
Also, an analogy: would you eat a bowl of candy that had the best piece of candy in the world and also the most poisonous substance (malware)?
These lists follow the same "survival of the fittest" that underlies capitalism and evolution, and while coordinated efforts have many advantages they also have all the disadvantages of monoliths. I think a Yahoo-like site would have a hard time producing a better result.