On 5/16/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I would prefer a term like "ideological
factions" to "division".
Division is natural and happens all the time when people disagree.
Even permanent groups devoted to particular topics are something we
want to promote and develop further. It's the formation of permanent
_ideological_ factions which tends to hurt Wikipedia, and these are
again distinct from user groups devoted to particular topics.
There is a difference between "division" and "divisive". Some people
prefer one day cricket, and some prefer test cricket. This naturally
creates "divisions" as you say, but this is not a "divisive" topic.
does not polarise people. It does not force bystanders to take sides.
It does not something which causes everything to be seen in terms of
one view or another.
Your example of inclusionist or deletionist is a good example of
something which is divisive.
I'm not sure what I'm getting at, but yes, we do need to define
exactly what is "divisive" and why we do or don't allow it.