Science requires one thing: making and testing falsifiable hypotheses. A priest is able to determine whether or not you are doing that. If anything, it's philosophers who decide what science is, e.g. Karl Popper.
So, I too consider that agreement from others isn't a prerequisite for being a scientist. I also agree that "making and testing falsifiable hypotheses" definitely qualifies as doing science.
However, perhaps that's not the only way to do science. In general, there is that whole set of criticisms on the limits of falsifiability (with Kuhn et al). In particular, I'm thinking of cases where arguably the technology isn't sufficiently advanced to perform the measurements necessary to directly test the hypotheses (e.g., how quantum physics progressed). Arguably those doing all the thought experiments, modeling, thinking through consequences of those hypotheses and comparing with what they could measure were doing science -though those weren't falsifiable hypotheses at the time.
So what I'm saying is that your requisite is sufficient but perhaps isn't necessary either.
"Scientist" implies a certain amount of knowledge, training, discipline, etc. I'm not implying that every scientist needs to have undergone academic training - there are other ways - but merely doing a scientific experiment is not enough to call yourself a scientist.
A scientist is one who "does science" with some knowledge, consistency and perseverance.
> In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method. [...] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word.
If we're going to throw definitions around, how about dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientist?s=t
> an expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences.
If being a scientist is determined by the consensus of one's peers, it seems like it makes sense to accept an article defining what scientists are that is written as a consensus opinion.
But anyway, if you think it's wrong, why don't you edit it?