Apology accepted, however even if the characterization is accurate for other editors, it serves no purpose in bringing it up.  Making disputes personal rarely enhances dialogue.  Anyway, I think you've concluded basically the same thing I have: such a broadening of definition would include many people who really should not be considered philosophers.  Consider, for instance, Ayn Rand.  She wrote on the topics of metaphysics, ethics, etc, but she did so rhetorically and without actually attempting to prove her points using syllogistic logic.  She contributed nothing to human knowledge, both because her reasoning was fallacious and because any of her actually valid conclusions had already been documented by previous philosophers (for instance, "objectivist" metaphysics are simply a renamed naturalistic metaphysics).  I don't mean to group Dawkins with Rand of course as Dawkins is, in my opinion, a brilliant man who has contributed much to human knowledge.  But this is my point: using such a broadened definition puts Dawkins, Rand, Kant, Mill, and Russel in the same category, which I think is prima facie an incorrect grouping.  

Now, as to your point that philosophers will favor their own: well yes, but the same should be said for biologists and physicists.  When we write an article on evolution we value the discoveries of biology and not of religion.  Philosophy is and basically always has been an academic enterprise, starting with the post-religious works of the Sophists/Plato/Aristotle/etc as they founded the world's first philosophical academies.  Since then the practice of philosophy has undergone many manifestations but even among those differences it is generally somewhat easy to tell what is philosophy and what is simply on the subject of philosophy but not actually philosophy.  For instance, the analytical school of philosophy, I think, should not hesitate to consider continental philosophy something other than philosophy, it is just considered to be incorrect (being very general here).  From a Wikipedia standpoint, encyclopedias themselves are an academic enterprise and as such when we're considering how to assign WP:WEIGHT to a subject we do so by reference to experts in that subject.  Whether rightly or wrongly, the experts on philosophy have yet to recognize Dawkins as a philosopher, but as WP editors our job is not to determine whether or not Dawkins is really a philosopher, but rather to consider the expert opinion on the matter and give due weight to minority views when appropriate. talk