Who rules the meaning of "anarchism?"
To me, an important part of anarchism (some call it voluntaryism) is it's simplicity. It is so simple we don't need "authorities" to interpret the various flavors. Some people will need guidance in following or discovering the logical consequences, but the idea is simple: No Rulers, No Aggression and Self Ownership. These follow from the right to life. There can't be rulers without "legalized" aggression. There can't be self ownership if there are rulers. Without self ownership there can't be a right to pursue life.

Anyone agreeing so far should be able to see that ownership of property, the fruits of one's labor, is an extension of self ownership and the right to life. It should also be clear that central ownership of property or communism would require force, rullers and aggression.

I see no reason to discuss various colors or flavors of anarchism. If someone wants to live a primitive life with or without others they can call themselves whatever they want and still be anarchists if they follow the above principles.