[WikiEN-l] Factions vs. Division (was Re: Divisive and InflammatoryBehavior, was CSD T1)

[charles matthews]

 "Erik Moeller" wrote

> I would prefer a term like "ideological factions" to "division".
> Division is natural and happens all the time when people disagree.

But I wouldn't prefer this.  'Divisive' is clearer than 'ideological': I 
have just been reading an academic text where it is stated that "ideology" 
has at least 100 meanings.  Divisive writing can be recognised by its 
intention, to split and polarise.

<snip>

> The last thing I want to see is people on [[Talk:Church of Jesus
> Christ of Latter-day Saints]] arguing that a new guy who tries to fix
> up the currently awful "Criticism" section is trying to "divide the
> community" by focusing on "contentious and inflammatory content" with
> "clear intent to disrupt and provoke." In reality, it might well be
> that an ideological faction of Mormons is dominating the article -- in
> which case they would be the ones acting against the spirit of
> Wikipedia by trying to drown out criticism. (No offense intended to
> Mormons with this arbitrary example.)

This is a known phenomenon (it's on the Raul's Laws page): a standing 
consensus around an article is broken.  But I'm clear that is not what is 
being targeted.  One can disagree with a consensus version of an article, 
without taking a divisive social line.  Some editors don't understand this, 
true.

Charles