The initiatory traditions and the eclectics have been arguing about the word for forty years, and the argument is genuine rather than merely territorial.
The British Traditional position is that Wicca names a specific initiatory mystery religion, founded by Gardner and transmitted by degree from a person who holds it, and that a religion whose material is oathbound cannot, by definition, be acquired from a book. On this view eclectic practice is neopagan witchcraft, which is a perfectly respectable thing to be, and calling it Wicca empties the word of content.
The eclectic position is that a religion belongs to the people who practise it, that the initiatory claim to the name rests on a lineage whose own origin story failed historical examination, and that gatekeeping a word is a poor use of anyone's time.
Underneath sit two real questions. Can a self-dedication do what an initiation does, if what an initiation does is transmit something from one person to another? And is a mystery religion still a mystery religion once its mysteries are on a shelf in a chain bookshop?
Neither side has conceded, and the practical outcome has been settled by numbers rather than by argument. The eclectics are the overwhelming majority, the word means in ordinary speech what they use it to mean, and the initiatory lineages have largely stopped contesting the usage in public while continuing to make the distinction among themselves.
It is worth noting that both sides accept the historical findings about Gardner. What they disagree about is what follows from them.