It renders the wiki 'wrong' if they were successful. I'm not saying that's the way itThe Fonz wrote:What the wiki said was what watcher had been considered to be, as far as i can make out, since the founding of the site (i actually read old games to confirm this). That a bunch of people came along and tried to redefine the role does not render the wiki 'wrong.'Xdaamno wrote:I voted 2, but I meant 1. I'm surprised that article has been incorrect for so long.
And yes, I know i'm in a minority of one here.
should
be, but in this respect the Wiki is analagous to a dictionary. Dictionaries don't define language, they document it - similarly, the Wiki should use the definitions for roles as they are commonly understood. That's why this thread was necessary - to ensure that the Wiki represented the Watcher as understood by the community, not just by Stoof. If you're in a minority of one, that doesn't make you wrong about what a Watcher should be - as long as you accept that you're 'wrong' about what a Watcher
currently
is (wrong in inverted commas because a) you are under no illusions that your opinion and that of others differs and b) what is 'wrong' and 'right' here is not a matter of merit but consensus).edit: My point here, clumsily made, is that 'wrong' isn't really the appropriate word here. More accurate to say that because a number of people redefined the Watcher to a role that makes more intuitive sense - one who watches their target, with the previous role already accounted for under the umbrella of Tracker - the Wiki was rendered not wrong, but out of date.