Jim Carroll
"But Cecil Sharp can speak on behalf of Norfolk fishermen, Maud Karpeles on behalf of Gower farm labourers?"
The 1954 definition, from which most dictionary definitions are derived, was arrived at by the pooling of knowledge and experience of those working in the field. It reached far beyond the people present and took into consideration the work of people like Kidson, Broadwood, Vaughan Williams, Butterworth... (the articulators) all of whom had presumably gathered information from their informants. This would have been the case in the other countries represented. It was not an attempt to define the individual communities – fishing, mining etc.; rather it was an attempt to make sense of a world-wide phenomenon based on the information gathered by those working in the field.
If these people were not qualified to make an assessment – who would you suggest was more suited to the job? – or was anybody qualified? Was the job worth doing at all? If they got it wrong, where?
""Folk" had been in use for a long time before 1954...... exclusive use of the word that causes problems."
The relevant definition of folk as applied to music, tales, superstitions, art..... according to my dictionaries anyway is "occurring in, originating among, belonging to the common people. For full discussion of the term in this context, see Funk and Wagnall's 'Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend', under song, music, lore, customs tales dance....etc.
If that is correct – how does it fit in with your new re/non definition; if it isn't - why?

I have agonised about how to reply to this. Perhaps the phrases I have highlighted will help make my point.

I find it hard to make you out, Jim. At times, you speak with passion and admiration for the people that you have collected songs from; at others, you seem to be dismissive of them, thinking it "somewhat odd" that they could be expected to speak for themselves.

Earlier you said -

As I understand it, the established definition was drawn up by people working in the subject; basically by those who supplied us with the raw material in the first place.

Really? Who supplied us with The Seeds of Love, Cecil Sharp or John England?

Was the job worth doing at all?

A good question. The "practitioners" had managed perfectly well without it for hundreds of years. I don't think they relied on von Herder or Funk and Wagnall to tell them what it was they were doing. Clearly, it is of use to the folklorists who coined it for discussion amongst themselves and it is of interest to those of us who have followed after. I think we would call ourselves "enthusiasts" and we tend to use the term "traditional" to distinguish from the widely used (and rather vague) term "folk".

how does it fit in with your new re/non definition

I don't have a definition. I have no authority to impose one. I simply have to listen and interpret what people are saying in context. Language evolves.