The 1954 definition was "right" for the purpose, time and place for which it was formulated. Applying it more widely may sometimes work but can lead to problems. Notably it excludes songs such as those written by McColl, Tawney et al, which even some of us here (fussy argumentative blighters with a passion for the subject) would like to consider as "folk".

The OP, as an admitted newcomer, asked an innocent question. Unfortunately it's a question to which the classic words of Joad apply: "It depends what you mean by ...". Hence this thread promptly drifting onto what we mean by "folk song". The fact that that subject has been flogged to death several times before on Mudcat hasn't stopped a further round of argument.

The wisest observation that I can recall seeing is that the term "folk" is currently used by different people with such radically different meanings that it has become almost useless.

Many of us know what we personally consider to be folk songs, but that's largely on the same subjective basis as was applied by the early collectors: "I know one when I hear one".