Talk:Ofo (company)

Moscow is only planned to launch

There is a mistake in the list.--Кондрашев Александр (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

BOLD edits - see edit history

Remove directory of locations - too extensive for such a short article, not able to be maintained, users can go to the home page to determine service areas. Remove poorly written excessive detail about product as too promotional. Remove Chinese sources as not useful on an English site. Remove note about Chinese translation since the cut and pasted info was removed. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. But maybe leave the Chinese sources if not replaced by English ones. Chinese sources are considered better than none. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

the source of the name ofo

The company name came from the fact that in English the characters "ofo" kind of look like a person riding a bicycle. Since Chinese language is logographic they are using English as if it were logographic too. Not sure where this would fit in the article, but I think it would be good to put in.

Lansey (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lansey. That's good info for an etymology or company name section if you have a source for it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added this to the article with some sources I found. SounderBruce 00:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well done. Thank you all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, nice going User:SounderBruce Lansey (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing the article to change to lowercase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PalimpsestCleaner (talk • contribs) 21:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

deletion of pictures

• People are forced to walk on vehicle lane after ofo and Mobike blocked the whole sidewalks with bikes
• Mobikes and ofos were placed in front of bus stops to prevent people from taking buses

These two pictures were deleted by some editor in excuse of POV. There as real pictures. It can be easily seen that people are forced to walk on vehicle lane because Ofo and Mobike block the sidewalk. Bus stops are also blocked, making people unable to board buses. Please make your comments. Otherwise, I'll consider deleting these pictures as destructive edit and vandalism. 螺钉 (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I undid your edit as POV, as did user:SounderBruce. There's nothing wrong with the pictures, but your comments are POV. You are claiming that they were put on the sidewalk to prevent people from walking on the sidewalk, and in front of the bus stop to prevent people from taking buses. That's POV. And for that matter, I don't even see a bus stop being blocked the second picture. Meters (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Bus stops are luxurious in China. The steel roofs with adverting posters are bus stops. They look different from those in many western countries. That is why the picture need captions and explanations. The current wording for the second picture is actually what user:SounderBruce uses [1], after I talked to him in his talk page. Please stop your deletion of the pictures. I'll also change the tone of voice for the first picture caption. 螺钉 (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the titles of the images are POV also, and since you uploaded the images, that's on you. Meters (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Your diff was not made by SounderBruce. Meters (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I made a mistake. But there is nothing wrong with the pictures. I'll change the tone of voice for the captions. 螺钉 (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you propose the wording here. You are at a level 4 POV warninjg and if your new wording is still POV you may be reported. Meters (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ofo and Mobike bikes blocking sidewalks
• Ofo and Mobike bikes blocking bus stop boarding platform

These are what I propose. 螺钉 (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Still POV. I suggest adding only one image (perferrably the bus one, which illustrates the "Controversy" section) with the following caption: "Several ofo and Mobike bicycles parked at a bus stop". SounderBruce 03:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The bikes are NOT parked by renters. Ofo hires people to put bikes massively onto the street to gain market shares. Blocking sidewalks is a major negative aspect of ofo. I see no reason why the first picture should be deleted. I'll suggest using the wordings below:

• Ofo and Mobike bikes placed on sidewalks
• Ofo and Mobike bikes placed in front of bus stop boarding platform 螺钉 (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with SounderBruce's proposal. One image makes the point, and his wording is neutral. Wikipedia should not be making claims about whether the bikes are intentionally blocking things, or even unintentionally blocking them. Meters (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

"Parked" is not a impartial word. "Placed" is much impartial. It is also "in front of" not "at" the bus stop. These two pictures deal with two different negative aspects of Ofo. Wikipedia doesn't have regulations on limiting the number of pictures used. 螺钉 (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with "parked". It's accurate and neutral. "Placed", on the other hand, is not neutral as it has the connotation that the bikes were intentionally placed so as to block the bus stop. It's clear from 螺钉's earlier image captions that this is his or her intent. I have no objection to using "in front of" rather than "at". Meters (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Where is the source for 螺钉's claim that bikes were placed there by Ofo rather than parked there by renters? Meters (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

That is the point. You see renters park, Ofo employees don't park. Anyone can place. Place is more neutral. 螺钉 (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you also count the number of bikes in the picuture? There are at least more than 30 bikes there blocking the whole platform. It is not several. 螺钉 (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The neutral point of view is a core content policy, as is the prohibition on original research. It is obvious, 螺钉, that you have an intense dislike of this company which is affecting your editing. If you cannot edit neutrally and without avoiding original research, then you should not be editing this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear admin,isn't that obvious that there are more several bikes in the pictures? No matter whether they were parked by renters or placed by Ofo employee, these bikes are blocking the bus boarding platform. Anyone with eyes can see this from this picture. The issue is that some people like this company too much and don't want negative aspects of this company to appear in this article. That is not neutral point of view. 螺钉 (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

controversy section

The controversy section is well-sourced and uses impartial wording. I think the POV charge is groundless. People who put the POV template needs to make specific explanations here. Otherwise, it is considered groundless and the template should be removed. 螺钉 (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The issues raised are not unique to ofo and should be covered in the bikeshare article (or a dockless bikeshare spinoff). It's like putting hit-and-run collisions in the article for Ford or the Corvette. SounderBruce 03:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Ofo employs people to put bikes onto street massively to gain market share intentionally. It is not comparable to hit-and-run accidents. The sources used also specifically mention ofo either in their titles or in the body of the articles螺钉 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that back "Ofo employs people to put bikes onto street massively to gain market share intentionally"? If not it's POV or OR., and it does not belong in the article or on the talk page. Meters (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

You can refer to the Chinese version of this paper. Chrome has translation features. 螺钉 (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Chinese version of what paper? If you are referring to the Chinese Wikipedia page, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Meters (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

You can also see the Ofo employees placing bikes on sidewalks on this picture. 螺钉 (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

So they are delivering a load of bicycles. It's not as if the stork brings them. Meters (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

They are not blocking the sidewalk or removing access to a bus stop in that picture, Do you have any reliable sources that explicitly state that the company floods the streets with their bikes to gain market share, or that they intentionally block sidewalks and bus stops? Your opinion of what pictures show is not acceptable. Meters (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is the source,this one in English. 螺钉 (talk) 05:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this controversy about dockless bikes in general? If so, and it seems so, then the controversy section should be in that article and not this one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The first source in Chinese is about Ofo. Although the second source talks about dockless bikes, it refers mainly "LimeBike and ofo, the two largest bikeshare operators in Dallas". Both dockless bikes and Ofo can have a controversy section and these two sources can be used in both articles. 螺钉 (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's about the sources. It's about these bikes. Here in Haikou, there are heaps of ofo, Mobike, some alipay bike, and others. This is not specific to ofo. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

As long as the source mentions Ofo, it is ok to use. You're not making sense. As I said before both dockless bikes and Ofo articles can have a controversy section. 螺钉 (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Neither the Chinese ref nor the English ref say anything about Ofo intentionally blocking sidewalks or bus stops, or flooding the streets with their bikes to gain market share. This is completely POV. The insistence of this user in adding this material about Ofo and in using POV captions on the photos (I've just removed another POV-captioned photo) is making me wonder if 螺钉 has a WP:COI. User:螺钉 do you have a COI in this article? That would include being involved with one of Ofo's competitors, or with a group dealing with the bicycle congestion, for example. Meters (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The first source is about the "Sea of Bikes" strategy by Ofo and other bike share companies causes Chinese cities to press a stop button. The second source is not obvious as the first one,but it does say "Dallas is planning regulations that will restrict the number of bicycles and where they can be parked. It's also threatened to start confiscating neglected bikes. Since September, the city has received 800 complaints about the bicycles. "Some of the bikes are left for days, weeks, or months, in some cases without being moved,"". It is also about Ofo blooding streets with bikes. This source says more obviously that Ofo floods cities with bikes: "City leaders are worried that Ofo will flood cities with thousands of bicycles -- as they have in China -- and offer cheap rides in an effort to build market share and put their lesser-funded rivals out of business". I think your persistent deletion of pictures is WP:COI and POV. There is nothing wrong with the picture. Ofo and other bike-share companies flood bikes in cities. This is a well-known fact. 螺钉 (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

螺钉, should all of these dockless bike articles have a controversy section? They all block sidewalks and bus stops. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, what's wrong with that? As long as there are people who can write that much in different wordings, there is nothing wrong with that. New York State has a history section. But all cities in New York State can also have a history section of their own. 螺钉 (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with that was stated by SounderBruce above. Let's find out what the community thinks about that specifically. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

User:螺钉 I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about any possible COI on your part. Meters (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The answer is NO, and you still haven't answered my question about your any possible COI with this article. 螺钉 (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

You never asked if I had a COI. You made a completely ridiculous statement that you thought I had a COI and was making POV edits. I couldn't be bothered to deny it here since it should be plainly obvious to anyone looking at this article that I have no COI or POV issue here. I did reply on my talk page when you repeated your statement there. Since my reply saying that I have a COI simply because I have an opinion about your blatantly POV captions is completely groundless, and verging on a personal attack. I don't care at all about the particular company, or your perceived controversy. What I care about is that whatever does get said in the article is neutral, accurate, and properly sourced is apparently not clear enough for you, no, I do not have a conflict of interest. in this article or company. Meters (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Content about ofo bikes clogging the sidewalks

Should that content be in the individual dockless bike articles, like this one, or just in the dockless bike parent article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

There is even no dockless bike article in wiki, my dear admin. Is there any Wiki guidance on this, only unique contents are allowed, generic ones forbidden?User:SounderBruce is no guidance. 螺钉 (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Well I'll be darned, you're right, 螺钉. I thought we did. Hmmmm. I'm not sure why you refer to me as dear admin. Dear Anna is fine. I am at this article as an ordinary editor. Not knowing there wasn't a dockless article doesn't make me a bad admin. It just makes me look a bit daft in this case. :) But really, I do think the community and visitors would prefer the controversy content about these types of bikes clogging public spaces to be centralized in one spot. Permit me to rephrase. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Rephrased

Should content about dockless bikes in general clogging public spaces be in each article, or centralized elsewhere?

How was that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see it centralized. Unless there are reliable sources showing specific complaints about a particular company, I don't think such material belongs in a company's article. It would be the equivalent of adding a section to each airline company's page saying that their airliners cause noise pollution when taking off, or to each car manufacturer's article saying that their cars contribute to traffic congestion. Meters (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I concur. It needs to be discussed in an overarching article unless we have good reason to discuss the matter for a specific company. Schwede66 08:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I've added quite a few controversies that are specific to ofo. Hopefully, this will end this dispute. 螺钉 (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

And how does your adding yet more negative comments on the company justify your removal of the NPOV tag? Meters (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The negative comments are from news report, with sources provided, not mine. It is about controversy. So they are about negative things. This is not POV. People here all agree that dockless bikes like ofo cause social problems. What people disagree is where these controversies should be placed.But I've add quite some controversies specific to Ofo. These controversies have nowhere to go but to stay in this article. You need to provide appropriate reasons for placing the NPOV template. Otherwise, it can be considered a vandal. Negative contents are not reasons for placing POV template. 螺钉 (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Would you please start indenting your replies?

I didn't add the POV tag. User:SounderBruce did here [2]. Given that the summary left when creatign this section was "Added Controversy section, to explain how this bike company has ticked off communities around the world because of their business practices" I think the tag is deserved. Your addition of more material to the section does not obviate the need to reach consensus about the section. Meters (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked 螺钉 for disruptive editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Location table

Citobun, I'm not sure that I agree with you removing the location table. I shall leave a possible revert to other editors, though. I'm curious about your edit summary, though, where you state (abridged): "WP:NOTDIR, this info can be found on the website of the company". Where does it state the locations on their website? There is a very short list in their FAQ section but what you've removed here is far more detailed. Can you please provide a link to what you refer to? It's entirely possible that I have overlooked something, and others might not be aware where to look either. Schwede66 05:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a list of cities on Ofo's site either, just a list of countries. Thus many of the entries in the removed table are actually unsourced and should not be included unless properly cited to reliable sources showing Ofo operating in each particular city.

Having said that, my opinion is that the table probably does fall under NOTDIR, and as Citobun pointed out, it's not feasible to maintain a rapidly expanding list of locations on Wikipedia. The list is already about a third of the entire article, and is only going to grow. Meters (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization

Shouldn't Ofo be capitalized, but it specified in the article that the name is stylized "ofo"? I doubt that the company's name is actually registered as "ofo." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.0.60 (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It's (almost) irrelevant what the company is registered at; note that many companies even have a trading name different to their registered name. What is of relevance for Wikipedia is how the company is most commonly referred to in reliable sources. If that is most commonly the lower case company name then the current article title is correct. Note that I have no opinion whether the article title is correct or not; I'm merely responding in general terms to the question raised. Schwede66 07:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Business Section

Would content under the “Business” header be better suited under “History”? The content sounds promotional as currently written, but it seems any relevant information could be rewritten and added to the history section and the Business header could be removed. WonderfulWorld (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

2018–present: Crisis and focusing on "priority" markets

There is a mistake, following the retrenchment ofo still operates in Cambridge and Oxford in addition to London. Thelastonmylist (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

BitScout (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC) The link to their website seems dead, do we delete it or mark it as dead?

"Ofo founder 戴威" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ofo founder 戴威. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Dq209 (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)