"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