Speaking as (one of) the resident Viking/Norse experts in this forum, I think this is a pretty pointless debate. Having said that I don't completely agree with some of the ways that the video author frames his points, but overall I am in agreement with him. Viking is more or less the accepted term in Modern English. Experts will use Norse/Nordic or more specific terms (Icelandic, Norwegian, Mósfell, etc) in most cases, but many of them choose to use Viking (especially in book and paper titles) because it is the term most (English speaking) people think with. So let's look at his argument a bit.

His etymology is reasonably fine. Vik means bay, Vikin is a location in Norway (in Oslo fjord), and wicing is Old English for raider. I am disappointed that he chose to only say that Vikingr meant "people of the bay" or "people from Vikin" as Vikingr did (obviously) acquire a definition meaning raider or pirate. Every time that it shows up in the sagas, that is the definition being used. I guess he assumed that people would already know that (because why would they be watching the video if they didn't?) but still would have been nice for him to be explicit. Now, the fun part of his explanation. He is completely right about wicing and its variants disappearing from the language with the transition to Middle English.

There is a monograph The Vikings and the Victorians: Inventing the Old North in 19th Century Britain by Andrew Wawn which studies the reintroduction of the word and concept of Viking into English language and society. I have not had the opportunity to read the entire thing, but the gist is that English society became extremely interested in Icelandic/Norse/Viking literature in the early 1800s and by the end of the century, Viking influences were all over the place (including, entertaingly, attempting to trace the lineage of Queen Victoria back to Ragnar Loðbrok and Oðinn). This interest was arguably sparked by a series of publications in the 18^th and early 19^th century within Scandinavia itself of certain works, most notably some Eddic poems. These new publications allowed a greater availability and dissemination of a literary canon that was until then basically unknown to the British. Seeing the similarities to their own older literature, the English began to take interest in this other culture and try to compare it to their own and also investigate the theorized features of a culture that could produce such works. (For a slightly tangential discussion on the history of philology of Old English check out this post.)

Now, Viking was reintroduced into English during the 19^th century, but even then there were still many different terms in use. Viking, Vikingr, Wikingr, Wicking, Norse, Northmen, Norsemen, etc. Really just depended on the author and the context of their writings on which term they went with (pretty similar to today, no?). So even though Viking can mean raider, its reintroduction to English was as being synonymous with Norse and its thesaurus buddies. So really, in English, using Viking interchangeably makes a lot of sense. It is how it was used when it became part of the language. And that's how languages work. Words gain and change meanings over time (think about the different connotations of "cool" in modern parlance). Words are adopted from other languages and in many cases don't maintain their original definitions. So the original Old Norse definition is "raider" or "people of the bay" but in Modern English its definition is synonymous with Norse.

So I think that kind of takes care of the first two points about words changing and the fact he's using English. Now before I move onto the third point about Experts, I want to make a comment about it being racist or bigoted. Viking means raider and what they did during raids were reprehensible. But the Victorians did not really see it that way. Many of them saw the simple farmers depicted in the Icelandic sagas and passed them by to look at older accounts of Norwegian raiders. They saw these men as the embodiment of manliness. The Viking raiders had a fire for adventure and living life to the fullest in their hearts. They took what they wanted, they were fierce, they were big, they were strong. They were a people to be admired, especially the kings who led these raids and composed these stories and poems. When Viking entered the (modern) language, it was not as pejorative or curse. It was something to be admired. But perhaps language will continue to change and Viking will go the way of the dodo because of its negative connotations in today's world. Who knows.

As for the experts. It really bothers me that you write this call to authority off as "pop history". What about Viking Language by Jesse Byock? The Viking Diaspora by Judith Jesch? The Vikings in England by D.M. Hadley? Seven Viking Romances by Hermann Pálsson and Paul Edwards? I could go on but I think you get the point. These are/were all extremely well respected figures within the field of Viking/Norse studies (some of them are dead now, hence the "were" in that sentence). In addition one of the masters programs through the University of Iceland in Reykjavik is Viking and Medieval Norse Studies. The Experts in this case have no/few problems with using the term Viking. And neither do I. I use the term pretty interchangeably, usually depending on how questioners here phrase their inquiries. Because really, as long as people get the point I don't see why it matters if someone uses Viking or Norse. It's just pedantry at that point.