There are three forms of "equivalence relations are effective" as part of Giraud's axioms in $1$-Grothendieck topoi, Model topoi and Infinity topoi. I am trying to understand how they relate to one another.
For $1$-Grothendieck topoi, an equivalence relation is a subobject $R \hookrightarrow X \times X$ satisfying some conditions. We say an equivalence relation is effective if when we take the coequalizer $R \rightrightarrows X \to X/R$, then $R = X \times_{X/R} X$. Intuitively I would have hoped an equivalence relation was just an internal groupoid, however the nlab says that an equivalence relation is only equivalent to an internal category with maps in both directions. Is there a good reason for this?
This is made more confusing because the way that equivalence relations are generalized to model topoi is using Segal groupoids. If an equivalence relation is not an internal groupoid, why should the generalization be groupoidal?
Segal groupoids are simplicial objects in a model category satisfying the usual Segal conditions and such that $X_2 \xrightarrow{(d_0, d_1)} X_1 \times_{X_0} X_1$ is a weak equivalence.
However a groupoid object in an infinity category requires much greater coherence, namely that $X_n$ must be a pullback of all possible partitions $S \cup S' = [n]$ with $|S \cap S'| = 1$.
For the nerve of a $1$-groupoid it seems that the two above notions are equivalent.
If I have a model topos, then a Segal groupoid object in it should be a groupoid object when I think of it as an infinity category. How do I show this? Equivalently, is the definition of groupoid object in an infinity category equivalent to just requiring the Segal condition and the condition on $X_2$?