Tom,
I said, or tried to say that they attached no importance to the authorship of their songs; the songs were very much a part of their lives - that's why many of them lasted for centuries. They certainly did not hang a price tag on them - as appears to be happening here.
In the early part of the 20th century Sharp et al identified and collected a body of songs which he referred folk. He had a stab at analysing the characteristics of the material - flawed, but certainly adequate, and it was from the early work that the 1954 definition was arrived at. The term was applied an identifiable body of song and referred to it's origins ('folk' has a separate dictionary reference apart from it's musical and lore one). To say that the IFMC payed no attention to the people who made and circulated the songs is utter nonsense - that's exactly what they did and that is the strength of the definition when used correctly.
Some time after the start of the revival, a section of the singers involved, who may well have started out on a folk basis, Dylan for instance, moved away and began to use the term as a cultural dustbin in which to discard anything that they had no immediate identification for. This eventually led to the mass exodus (myself included) from the clubs and the confusion that exists at present.
Academically nothing changed; the term continued to be in use, the collections and the research still appeared under the heading 'folk' - hence the doublespeak.
Because Wikepedia got it wrong and is out of step with the established definitions is no reason to continue down that particular road.
If you wish to apply the term to your music - please explain the connection between it and that which has been in use for at least a century, and is still in full use in research (please don't mention the talking horse!)
From all points of view it is would be far better to recognise that we are dealing with totally different genres of music and identify them as such - we were here first - get your own name!
Jim Carroll