Systems based on collective wisdom are constructed by different, even totally opposing ideas. The essence of that system is the ability to retain the symmetry (i.e. the coherence) of the system even though it consists of distinct viewpoints. To stop such systems, it’s not a good strategy to try to divide different branches and viewpoints in this system. This makes the system even more robust because the system now contains more distinct ideas and the system learns how to reshape so that it retains its symmetry.
On the other hand, in systems that rely on the wisdom of individuals, the coherence of the system is very fragile if encountered with criticism. These systems have to reward admiring the wisdom of those individuals to retain the coherence of the system even though the wisdom of those individuals is proven to be very limited.
“Divide and conquer” types of strategies are ineffective against a collective-wisdom-based system. A totally different approach is required.
The main idea of “divide and conquer” is that the coherence of the other side should be targeted. The worst time to start a battle is when the coherence of a system is shaking at its core.
UPDATE 1:
Systems that are based on the wisdom of individuals will inevitably have to use violence to retain the stability of the systems. On the contrary, violence undermines collective-wisdom-based systems because developing self-correction mechanisms is the opposite of violent activities.