Lots of different words and phrases "devalue" different technical terms, since they exist outside of their technical definition. From what I can see from the OED, group think has been used as a term since 1923 and similar phrases like group mind were used in the late 19th century. Because someone makes a definition in a field it does not strip the original word or phrase of its meaning. If that was the case I'm sure lawyers would have a field day with all of us and that I could pick out quite a few misuses of onto on this site.

The technical meaning you point to is interesting. However, it does not even apply to this site as no one here is making decisions by committee, this is a forum/group blog. I'm surprised you pointed to it as the culture here has some of the pathologies mentioned, such as:

Not seeking expert opinion

Being highly selective in gathering information

These two aren't really as much are your fault, it's a bummer we can't access/share academic articles that pertain to many of the subjects discussed here.

A little more trouble for this site is the solutions though:

Having leaders remain impartial

Obvious trouble.

Using outside experts

One of Eliezer's biggest flaw's is his high opinion of himself and those that agree with him:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/25848?in=49:06&out=49:12

Along with it the wholesale writing off of others that he knows very little of. From Eliezer's point of view there are very few, if any, experts of any worth to consult on many issues at all. This sort of thought is toxic for collaboration with others and can be profoundly isolating.

The history of this site is not very long and it should not surprise anyone that most around here tow the Eliezer line. He created this site after becoming a smallish blog celebrity on overcomingbias. That those that came to populate this site largely agree with him should not at all be surprising. That you think no one should be able to charge groupthink comes off as incredibly defense and really silly given that it would be a little shocking if it wasn't here.

Now to try to be constructive, here are some things that could facilitate interesting discussions around here:

1. Ban topics that make you look nuts and that you largely agree on already: FAI and cryonics.

The time when FAI was banned seemed to have a much more diverse and interesting discourse. Why retread the same old topics when you could explore new things that no one here knows what 'Rationality' should say about it?

1. Less talking please.

Let's see some algorithms/programs or something besides overly long posts. I bet some cool stuff could come out of it. Why argue about which two things are better when you could try to see by testing it. Go empiricism.