Reading/Web/Mobile page issues

On the mobile web view of Wikimedia articles meta content, such as page issues, are not displayed in full as they are on desktop. The reasons for this are due to the formatting of the current templates not being suited for mobile devices and that even a single notification pushes the information down the page, distancing readers from the knowledge they seek.

Problem
We currently hide this information which might be relevant to readers and editors.

Hypothesis on building trust
Pointing out issues with our content will build trust with our readers. If we hold ourselves accountable for the quality of content on wikipedia, readers will put more trust into content they see on Wikipedia. Pointing out issues can be seen as we are doing due diligence.

Counter argument
Pointing out issues can also have an adverse effect of people not trusting us

Types of Issues
There are various types of meta-content surfaced on Wikipedia. This project falls under issues with article content. We’re looking at Ambox templates to be specific.

Draft Scope
We will show 12 different Page issues with 3 different treatments on Wikipedia’s mobile experience. We will bucket them by frequency, importance, and urgency. The analysis of sorting will be done on English Wikipedia to begin with. Why 12? : We will do top 6 issues by frequency and top 6 by reader interest. We will keep balance between the audience.

Breakdown of issues
The issues about the content varies from not having enough citations to the tone of the language used. Here’s a list of issues sorted by the frequency of usage on English Wikipedia.

https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/21178 Raw data sorted by frequency

Content issues to surface
Shown when: Article needs additional inline citations about its content
 * 1. Additional citations required

Shown when: Article doesn’t have any citations provided
 * 2. No citations given

Shown when: Article doesn’t have any links to other articles
 * 3. Orphaned content

Shown when: Notability of the subject of the article is disputed & is up for debate
 * 4. Notability is disputed

Shown when: Better article exists in other language
 * 5. Expand Language

Shown when: Content that is written like an advertisement
 * 6. Content might be an advert

Shown when: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject
 * 7. Possibility of Conflict of interest

Shown when: Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable
 * 8. Sources provided are unreliable

Shown when: Article may be confusing or unclear to readers
 * 9. Content writing style is confusing

Shown when: BLP needs additional citations for verification
 * 10. Biography of living person needs more references

Shown when: Article's factual accuracy is disputed
 * 11. Content written is disputed

Shown when: The neutrality of this article is disputed
 * 12. Content is not written with NPOV in mind

Possible solution

 * Allow contributors to format AMbox templates to be better formatted for mobile web views.
 * Allow readers to see these meta comments in a way that is not disruptive to their experience