Glad I snuck in that it's just my opinion! But the article you linked to sort of admits what I'm saying:
> The above thresholding matrix approach describes the Bayer family of ordered dithering algorithms. A number of other algorithms are also known; they generally involve changes in the threshold matrix, equivalent to the "noise" in general descriptions of dithering.
Basically, I'm leaning into "general descriptions of dithering" with my noise requirement, and the lack of noise in "ordered dithering" leads me to consider it not-quite-dithering.
The very first sentence of the general Dithering article [0] connects with my perspective as well:
> preventing large-scale patterns such as color banding
Aside: I probably misspoke with the word "halftone" earlier; apparently that's a specific thing as opposed to an umbrella term. I'm not sure there's a great word (other than "dither"...) for techniques to trade resolution for color.
Dithering is the right term. It was called this even as far back as the Win 3.1 era where program installers typically showed you a full screen window with a background gradient that went from dark blue to black and used ordered dithering to make it look semi-respectable.
The threshold map of ordered dithering is still a source of noise, it just happens to be carefully pre-baked so that (original image + noise)==output makes the output more legible than what you'd get from just mapping the original image pixels to the nearest available color.
The error diffusion is static and baked into the thresholds chosen, but it's still there and choosing the error diffusion properly still matters to getting a reasonable output.
I think that text is somewhat misleading because it leads people to believe that ordered dithering is not a kind of dithering, and also because the noise in general descriptions of dithering is not equivalent to changes in the threshold matrix. Rather, it is equivalent to differences between the input image and the output image. So I've fixed it.