Here's where I'm coming from on this issue of terminology.
I post in technical threads. Not as much as the dominators, but I go there every day, stay there for most of my time on a forum, and when I post I take my time and choose my words carefully. I spend too much time reading this stuff, really, but it's in my blood now. With all this time over the years spent reading technical threads, I have gotten to watch the bloodbaths as those "discussions" turn into train wrecks, which they sometimes do. But not always. On some forums, those train wrecks simply don't happen.
I've put some thought into the differences between sites where arguments get heated, and where they don't.
--On sites where there aren't many people who want to talk about technical issues, a few contribute when that kind of topic comes up, and a few ask questions back and forth, and a few tell stories, and that's about it. The thread ends. Done.
--On sites where a single very experienced authority on technical skiing has a strong presence (ownership), people defer to that person's posting content. Disagreements among the regular posters happen but stay civil because eventually the authority steps in and offers an overview that settles things. People who post choose to take part because they respect the authority of that major player. That's why they are reading those technical threads.
--On the site where I have spent most of my time, there are a number of folks who consider themselves authorities. And since skiing is complicated they do not agree on everything. Their discussions can be civil and very enlightening, with people choosing to disagree after working out where their common ground is and and after finding out where their fundamental disagreements lie. This happens only if the language is very precise and agreed upon. Often, the terms are fuzzy and being used differently in different posts. Then the conversation gets bogged down in what-do-you-mean-and-are-we-saying-the-same-thing-or-not talk, which can go on forever and clog up the discussion for pages and pages. That's why clearly defined terminology is important. It helps people avoid getting deflected into unending what-do-you-mean stuff, to find common ground, and to agree to disagree.
--But train wrecks can and do happen in those technical discussions for another reason, not related so much to shifting definitions of terms. Those wrecks have to do with personality. There are some people who believe their purpose is to convert others to their way of seeing things. They enter these discussions to promote their viewpoint, and want to be the last one standing when all is over and done. So they continue to describe their points until everyone else gets tired and leaves, or (worse) personally attack those who continue to disagree with them. The lack of clear term definitions does contribute to the soup of conflict that these people love to swim in, but it's not the cause of the ugliness. Moderation is necessary.
So I'm all for getting a glossary up and going, and for some moderator to post definitions inside the technical talks as they are needed. The people posting can be "invited" to use the definitions; a hammer is not necessary nor pleasant. They might choose to discuss those definitions, and the thread will continue along those lines. Or they might choose, for the length of the discussion, to use that definition to tease out their common ground and find their fundamental differences on the original topic. And then agree to disagree.