After mulling over your response for a bit, I wanted to reach out and clarify that this term is not really "UK specific". Consider "knighthood", the British, as well as other countries granted knighthood to their subjects - "knight" is not "UK specific". That does not make "knight" universally applicable, however. For instance, one cannot become a knight of the United States of America. Likewise, "landed gentry" is a title granted to people under British, Polish, and Chinese systems in the past.
It's debatable whether MWOD is guilty of playing a dangerous game of propaganda by peddling low quality definitions online with high SEO. They have an ethical obligation to not revise words out from under the population unless, of course, they are a non-neutral party with a particular agenda.
It's not fair to people, like yourself, who want to advance strongly-felt arguments to spoil those arguments with terms based on these weak definitions just because they showed up high in Google Search results.
As the terms our society uses to communicate continue to degrade into group-specific definitions, we will generally lose the ability to communicate effectively across groups; and, in turn, the ability to compromise and negotiate in good faith.
In other words, one's political opponents might interpret a speech differently due to the use of a different dictionary rather than (merely) disagreement with a particular argument.
To glimpse at one dystopian future, consider that the recent phenomenon of declaring one's personal pronouns might soon include identification of one's personal dictionary, one's personal thesaurus, one's personal collection of idioms, and one's personal grammar.