Changes

|Verdict Rationale=A consensus has emerged after a long discussion that the distinction and the respective definitions should be accepted. It was noted that "these formulations tend to be the starting point for so many of our discussions"^{[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-53|c1]]} and that "despite all disagreements that this taxonomy causes, it is actually accepted by the community".^{[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-67|c2]]} Yet, it was also indicated while that whereas the definition of ''group'' as "two or more people that share a characteristic" is the best we have at the moment, it may be potentially necessary to pursue the idea of redefining it as "one or more people..." to allow for one-scientist communities.^{[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-52|c3]]} While Finally, while a question was raised whether there is any "value in defining accidental groups as something separate from groups",^{[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-73|c4]]} it was eventually agreed that it is important to draw "a clear distinction between the two kinds of groups as accidental groups and communities".^{[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-73|c5]]}