In some way I agreed your point on definition is not always right, especially when people just simply go copy and paste definition from wikipedia and believe what it say is right. Wikipedia can only be used as a reference and not to be used as an exact or layman term, correct answer, as bear in mind that, anyone can contribute to wikipedia.

And back to the topic, I seriously doubt what is presented by wikipedia on the definition of Strategy. Harvest, build and destroy ?? Hello ?? We are in 21st century and frankly that definition is only suitable 10 years ago where all RTS game are almost alike but not suitable for strategy games nowadays. Strategy games is in a period of transition right now as every developers out there are trying to make something different. So to me, as long as a particular game involve strategy thinking, resources handling, army formation, building placing, etc etc and involving controlling armies/race as a whole would be categorized as a strategy game.

RPG is more towards to controlling one or more character and most of the time, you are stuck with that character(s) until game over. Dota is similar to Neverwinter Night and/or Baldur's Gate alike so it's definitely a RPG game, hmm... I guess it's not a even consider as a game, it's just a mod.

Oh and btw, Caesar IV, Tycoon series and SimCity series are belongs to Strategy games, but they are categorized into a smaller category of Strategy, Simulation. Sacrifice I'm not too sure as the game been there for quite some time, cant remember exactly how the game looks like.

And may I know, the point of this argument ?? From the way I see it, even if the world sees dota as a strategy game, you still cant change the fact that, it's just a mod.