Are you more important than me?

The more time I spend researching and joining in the Harry Potter fandom, the more I like the idea of belonging to a community with similar interests. It's pretty great to be able to automatically have a conversation with someone you don't know about something you are passionate about. It seems, however, that with any large group of people, drama has ensued.
Matt Maggiacomo from the Whomping Willows recently posted a blog on his MySpace about how someone has created a tiered rating system for how much of a fan you are, "based on how important and influential [you] are within the fandom". No, seriously?

I can't find the original post, and I have no idea who actually did this (Matt never says), but he goes on to berate this person, saying to sum up - "there are only two tiers in this community: J.K. Rowling, and everybody else". He also points out that "there's a weird dynamic within this fandom, where fans of Harry Potter have become fans of other fans". I guess everyone wants some sort of celebrity, and if meeting influential Harry Potter fans is the closest you can get, you'll take it.
The point that the original blogger is missing is a huge one. Where would all these podcasters and Wizard Rock bands be without these people who support them and get excited about these things (the "low-level fans", if you will)? Why would you want to alienate your fanbase by telling them "you're just not as important as I am in this fandom"? It seems so petty.

Of course, I don't want to belittle what many people have done for the fandom. It can be a full-time job to run a website like The Leaky Cauldron or Mugglenet, or tour around the country with your Wizard rock band. Yet it seems that these people are the ones that are humble and grateful for this experience, rather than walking around with your own brand of narcissism because of something that, let's face it, much of the world would classify as "nerdy". Matt says, "One unifying characteristic of these people is that they are hard workers who have made personal sacrifices to pursue their work. Another is that they truly love what they do, and it is their passion for their own creative process that keeps them from susceptibility to the pitfalls of fame." I am sure there are exceptions in this group as well, but I don't think it's necessarily the norm.

I found an interesting editorial by Victoria Loe Hicks about the fandom. "A bunch of adolescent kids suddenly find themselves wielding hitherto undreamed-of powers, faced with a sometimes repressive adult establishment and, in ways few grownups even grasp, engaged in shaping the future of the world." Sound familiar?
And she has a good point. She goes on to say that:

"...the most potent cultural narrative of recent years coincided with an explosion of interactive, Web-based technologies that have become the scaffolding for today's youth culture. Those new platforms have morphed the "fan clubs" of yesteryear, which communicated sporadically via photocopied newsletters delivered by snail mail, into dynamic real-time communities that span the globe."

The editorial then mentions the influence that this fandom has, being millions strong. Dr. Henry Jenkins, director of MIT's Comparative Media Studies program says, "One could argue that this vision of fandom as a political movement might reflect the ideological construction of the books themselves, which encourage us to stand up for what we believe in, to question authority, and to take strength in our own communities". It's easy to see how this has influenced fans. Take the entire Harry Potter Alliance, for example, or look at the Wizard Rock album, "Rock Against Voldemedia". Andrew Slack, the founder of the Harry Potter Alliance had this to say:

"Once Voldemort took over every form of media in the Wizarding World, Dumbledore’s Army and the Order of the Phoenix formed an independent media movement called “Potterwatch.”
Now the HP Alliance and Wizard Rock have come together to fight for a Potterwatch movement in the real world to fight back against Big VoldeMedia from further pushing out local and foreign news, minority representation, and the right to a Free Press."

Hicks also points out that "Ms. Rowling owns the legal rights to Harry Potter, but the fandom owns his zeitgeist". We have been given the canon, and we have created the rest. Every 8 year old Potter fan has contributed to that just as much as George Lippert has. Didn't Harry Potter teach us that the "little people" are just as important? After all, the Wizarding world was saved by 3 teenagers, not the Ministry of Magic.