Greetings, fellow Nukapedians. As the title of this forum page indicates, I do indeed have some worries with the Bug Verification Project as it is being run right now. What I am going to say below is the same text as seen on Fallout Wiki talk:Bug Verification Project, but that has not received any notice.
"I'm not a huge fan of this project, or at least the way it's currently being run. I had originally signed up because I thought it was an organised effort to actually verify bugs (as the project name implies), not just straight up doubt the validity of others' bugs and slapping a {{Verify|~~~~~}} on it. While I was a participant, I quickly realised what we were really doing. Most bugs with a verification tag are removed after the time is up (14 days) instead of being actually verified, which is the intent. This happens due to the bugs not being noticed during that 14-day span, or no one putting forth the effort to verify the bugs in-game. The end result is plenty of valid bugs being expunged from our articles, which obviously degrades quality and the amount of coverage in our bugs sections. Furthermore, the way the project is being executed nowadays is contradictory to the inveterate "assume good faith" policy.
Suspicious or unlikely-sounding bug reports should be marked with {{verify|~~~~~}} and removed if no verifications are forthcoming before the timer runs out.”— Our content policy
Most of the bugs that receive the verification tag are not suspicious, nor do they sound unlikely at all. Many editors are following this practice of indiscriminately removing platform tags and replacing them with a verification tag, even if the bug seems legitimate.
In conclusion, here's what I have to say: this project is being run in a way that contradicts policy (summarised by the quote above) and is hurting our article quality, since many valid bugs end up being removed. I would deeply appreciate it if these concerns are addressed and parts of the project possibly amended. --Skire (talk) 14:45, July 3, 2012 (UTC)"
I kinnda have mixed feelings for this. I'm sure people want to add bugs because they experienced them, but there are some issues about all this:
- What if someone who just wrote the note about a bug is the only one who has it? Not everyone has same.
- How should I know if someone tested that bug if the verify template is there?
- If I am assumed to belive all bugs are true, then how should I know on which platform it is (if the platform template isn't there) and then how should I know if it is indeed a true bug?
Energy X ∞ 09:00, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
Those are all good points but what I'm talking about is the execution. From what I've seen, people slap a verify tag on even when there already is a platform tag added by the person reporting the bug. There isn't much "verifying" going on in the project it seems, mostly marking things (and overdoing it) for verification hoping someone else will get to it. Well, the reality is most of these bugs end up in the verification overdue category and are removed. The real goal of the project should be to actually verify bugs - by testing them out and finding which platforms they are on. I'm even fine with bugs that have no platform to be marked for verification. Instead of straight-up doubting someone's bug report, why don't we (participants of the project) actually attempt to verify it ourselves? If not, don't expect someone else to - believe the bug as it directly states in policy. Of course, if said bug sounds suspicious or unlikely then it should be verified. --Skire (talk) 14:20, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about others, but when I slap a tag on a bug, I try and find it and trigger it. Sometimes it takes hours, but I still try and find it. 
Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate 14:29, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I'm getting at! =) What I'm hoping for is that people will actually assume responsibility for the bugs they tag, instead of leaving it for others. That way there is actually some degree of verification going on and the majority of bugs won't be unattended to, awaiting eventual deletion. --Skire (talk) 14:32, July 11, 2012 (UTC)
Need for additional templates?
I've been asked about the use a "platform needed" template to help facilitate bug verification. After looking at our content policy, the bug verification project and the existing templates, I'm not sure we need another template. It's quite clear that we are not supposed to put verify tags on every bug, only the dubious ones. If this is done correctly, that will leave us with:
- Bugs with properly formatted platform tags. Unless these are dubious, as the guideline states, they should not be tagged for verification. They can still be tested, rewritten for clarity and possible fixes/workarounds, but never deleted.
- Bugs without platform tags. This is mostly because users don't know how to use the template. Almost all bugs occur on all 3 platforms. These can be tested and platform tags added as needed, but not removed, and only tagged for verification when dubious.
- Bugs that should be verified. These are the dubious or unclearly stated bugs. These are the bugs that need to be tested, and if found to be specious, removed. If they need rewriting for clarity, they should be rewritten, not removed. Even when a bug is listed in the verification overdue cat (is a bot even updating this cat?), it should NOT be removed unless it is tested. These are the bugs that testing should focus on.
I don't see the need for any other mechanisms. If the guidelines are followed, only tested bugs that are found to be specious will be deleted. Again, a bug should never be removed unless it has been tested. If you don't have time or desire to test the bugs listed in the verification overdue cat, then leave then for someone who does. As for bugs needing platform tags, those should probably be caught when they're first posted. That's why we've got admins/mods/patrollers to check these edits to make sure they're formatted correctly and are readable. If an editor posts a bug without a tag, all you have to do is ask them which platform they're on and show them how to add the tag or add the tag yourself. I fear if we have a template to toss on the pages when we see an edit without platforms tags, we'll just slap the template on there, instead of asking the editor (who at this point is probably still around) for the information, and leave it for someone else to deal with it later.
As far as the project goes, I'm not involved, but I would say the proper progression for a project like this would be something along these lines:
- Inspect all bugs listed on pages and tag only dubious or unclearly worded ones for verification.
- Test and verify all the above. Delete only those found specious.
- Inspect all bugs without platform tags, test as needed and add tags.
- Inspect all properly platform tagged bugs and rewrite for clarity/test for workarounds.
At least, that's how I'd set up the project. The Gunny 
03:03, July 14, 2012 (UTC)