A remarkably effective designation, Ithink. "World music" tells me pretty much what to expect, and any box of CDs labelled that is pretty much guaranteed to give me some delightful surprises. And(this is purely taste) I know I am likely to like all the records in the box. Unlike the term "folk", which nowadays can mean so many things that I really havent a clue what might be in the box.
The starter of this thread, like a lot of people, seems to think that classification into genres always implies a moral or aesthetic judgement, which always causes needless controversy. Mudcat is so full of threads with discussions along the lines of
A: Richard Thompson isn't folk.
B: How can you say that, you nazi, Richard Thompson is wonderful. (The second remark is presented as some kind of disagreement with the first, when it is obviously nothing of the kind. It is merely a knee-jerk reaction by someone who isnt following the discussion).
   The threadstarter seems to imply there is something bad about the term "world music", and almost seems to be saying it is a good thing not to like Zimbabwean music. It's neither good nor bad, it's just a fact,whether you like Zimbabwean music or not (though it doess seem to be a rather sweeping statement to dismiss an entire nation's music, just because Ian Anderson calls it "world music").
      Anyway, I think it's a great term, keep using it. What will always cause the controversy, though, is which (if any) English records go into the box. Tickell, Boden and Boat Band in the recent fRoots playlist, I noticed. Seems fair enough to me.