Talk:Uber (company)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Companies (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Transport (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Contents

(Untitled)[edit]

This article needs to be improved; it's basically written like an advertisement for Uber. I did some low-hanging fruit edits, but it needs to be properly edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.83.5 (talkcontribs)

QUESTION: So how does the article look now? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
It is still like an advertisement for Uber, like this "Uber's launch has sparked a dramatic proliferation in companies emulating Uber's business model" ... there to see: The Wikipedia "model" of doing things is working, you can see here, since even after all the money for public relations that Uber has, in this talk page there is a user who said that this is not neutral and that comment still remains there. Compare this with the reporting about Uber in the media ... There you see, Wikipedia is the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdudtc (talkcontribs) 18:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I've re-worded that sentence for a more neutral tone. Took me seconds. Not sure why you didn't simply do that yourself. Dai Pritchard (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

List of cities[edit]

Someone should probably move the list of cities out to a new section - or maybe to a separate article? The current list is getting waaaay too big for the opening paragraph. --MarkTraceur (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it[edit]

after reading the article, i still have no idea what uber is. how is it different from a taxi? is it a taxi that customers hail with a phone app instead of waiving the hand on the street? --179.161.43.236 (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It is pretty much a taxi service, but with a different business model than the traditional taxi fleet services which have grown up for ... is it 70 years now? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"Different business model" still doesn't quite explain anything. I agree with the initial commenter that the article does nothing to explain how exactly Uber differs from traditional taxis, or what the reasons for the strong opposition to the company are, excluding lack of taxi licenses for its drivers. 203.153.104.180 (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It is what we called a taxi service. You contact the agent of the service provider, you receive a service and pay for it. What irks me is that you may one day have to have a smart phone and a gmail address. Once they've killed the traditional taxi service, traditional monopoly behaviour will follow. Paying taxes can be easily arranged, if the legislator has the will to take it off the credit card account used. Simple, any credit card payment that goes outside the country has a tax component taken out. The consumer will then pay for it and we'll see how well that goes. Not sure what happens to the insurance issue in this, but if the uber vehicles do not have proper insurance, that can be taken off the credit card as well. It's only the will of legislators that matters. 121.209.56.111 (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done -- Pretty-well explained now, don't you think? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Not really -- I don't see that the service has been adequately explained in the article. There is a great deal of information (too much) about the company's world-wide expansion efforts. But as far as explaining the service itself, here's all I get from the article:
Uber is an American international company headquartered in San Francisco, California. It develops, markets and operates the mobile-app-based transportation network also called Uber. The Uber app allows consumers to submit a trip request, which is routed to crowd-sourced taxi drivers.[1][2] [...] Many governments and taxi companies have protested against Uber, alleging that its use of unlicensed, crowd-sourced drivers was unsafe or illegal.
OK. So if I want a taxi:
Non-Uber Uber
I call them on the phone and talk to them I call them on the phone with an app
I tell them where I am and where I want to go I submit a "trip request"

(by telling them where I am and where I want to go)

They route my request to one of their available drivers They route my request to one of their available drivers
Their driver picks me up and takes me to my destination Their driver picks me up and takes me to my destination
I pay their driver for the service I pay their driver for the service
Admittedly I am inferring the last two steps for Uber, as they are not explicitly stated in the article. Given that I have inferred correctly, the only difference I see here is that when I call for the cab I actually talk to someone at most cab companies, whereas I access Uber with an "app". That hardly seems a big enough distinction to warrent saying that Uber is using a "different buisiness model".
The only other distinction I get from the article is that Uber (or just its drivers?) apparently doesn't believe in driver's licenses. No explanation is given for this odd stance. Is Uber connected with some anarchist collective that eschews the conventional regulations of society? Are they a political lobby trying to make some obscure point?
Perhaps the answer to these questions hinges, at least somewhat, on what is meant by the mysterious phrase "crowd-sourced driver", but that term is also not explained in the article. As the article now stands, it appears that Uber is just another taxi company, albeit one that doesn't want to pay for licenses.
Is that really all it is?

I also don't see where what Uber actually is or does is explained. I think the authors assume everyone knows, because, like, y'know, how can you not know? Are you a total nerd? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.212.6 (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

I know little about it and am not particularly interested in Uber, but this article appears to be dominated by some people who are antagonistic to the company. WP:NPOV needs to be maintained.

Despite my removal of "controversial" from the very beginning of the lede the company is, in fact, quite controversial, and faces a lot of regulatory hurdles from government and private groups claiming that its fundamental business is and should remain illegal. At this point much of the company's history and news coverage, and therefore much of the article, will be devoted to the opposition and lawsuits, and some of the incidents (such as an inadequately insured driver running over a pedestrian) that the sources tie to the reasons for the laws in the first place. On the other hand, your observation may be true, and that is a fact of a lot of articles about large or novel companies. They generate lots of interest, and much of that interest is from people who think they are evil, fraudulent, a scam, etc. Whether it's Apple, google, Walmart, or any of these, there is a constant ebb and flow of people adding negative information that may or may not be truly about the company or of enough weight to mention, and then people wanting to trim it back. If any company gets big enough it's going to have lots of lawsuits and detractors. To be worth mentioning it has to be something (sourced as) important, and really related to the company. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Uber is controversial. Why not call it what it is? Yes, as the company receives more negative press, some of it will be reflected in this article -- as it should be. I note that this week taxi drivers in Paris and London staged numerous demonstrations against this company. They tied up traffic in the center of those cities to protest Uber. That was never done before. Uber is controversial. Chisme (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Monsanto is evil, Steinway is classic, Nike is well-managed, Motown is legendary, and American Apparel is rather ghetto. But we don't introduce each in the lede by saying "Monsanto is an evil…", "Steinway is a classic…", "Nike is a well-managed…", "Motown is a legendary…", or "American Apparel is a ghetto…". The introduction is supposed to identify the subject, not comment about it. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with your characterizations of those companies, especially "American Apparel is ghetto." The word ghetto is a noun, not an adjective. All you have to do is read this article to know that Uber is controversial. Quit yer white-washing. Chisme (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, not going to quit. Your disagreement underscores the point, loaded adjectives aren't encyclopedic. On Wikipedia we don't use the word "controversial" in identifying most any subject, let alone companies. BTW, accusing editors of whitewashing is not going to lead to useful discussion. FWIW the article has worse problems, it's jumbled and messy. Two long sections, history and regulatory opposition, are basically lists without any thematic structre. At least they're mostly in chronological order. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Since when is the word "controversial" loaded? "Ghetto" is loaded, especially to a certain kind of American suburbanite, who thinks the word is an adjective that means "of or having to do with underclass African-Americans," but I don't see how "ghetto" even applies to American Apparel, much less whether it is controversial when used as you use it to describe a clothing manufacturer. "Controversial" does apply to a controversial company like Uber. We disagree on that. We agree that the article is jumbled and messy. I don't care whether you quit or not. My purpose here is not to make you quit but to enlighten you. 02:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth the term ghetto was originally applied to Jewish enclaves in Venice. As an adjective it is a sometimes ironic put-down that is several steps from removed from any black versus white issue. Bank of America is controversial. Monsanto is certainly controversial. Barack Obama is controversial. Global climate change and evolution are controversial in the United States (whether the controversy is legitimate or not). The traditional taxi companies that Uber is displacing are controversial as well. I am not proposing any of these things in any positive sense to suggest content for the encyclopedia, but rather showing by analogy that a loaded term like controversial should also be qvoided. Tagging things with the term "controversial" even if true denigrates them. In business it questions their legitimacy. That's simply not the approach Wikipedia takes to writing ledes. Further, it injects a point of view, that public reception is a primary fact about a thing. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Prior to updating this page today, I can see that the pendulum has swung the other way if the Lead is any indication. This is 2014 and we can create an article on this company that is objective, as encyclopedic articles need to be. I will proceed with my revision and welcome further contributions, criticism, feedback, etc. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Looking forward, thanks. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Two "opposition" sections?[edit]

Really? 15.219.233.74 (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

So how does it work?[edit]

The article gives no explanation at all 85.228.201.36 (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

/* Pricing and payments */ In the very short-run situation as described, the use of the term 'economic equilibrium' is inappropriate[edit]

The use of the term 'Economic Equilibrium' is inappropriate because price is a function of quantities. In this description (of the economic model of supply and demand) the firm is unable to affect prices for this reason (they are determined), only quantities.

It is more appropriate to describe the firm as engaging in 'peak-load price discrimination' to create a 'partial equilibrium' condition. But this deals specifically with the firm's cost (or supply) function. It is too complicated to explain 'equilibrium' accurately in the article, so I have removed reference to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.198.19.235 (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

All of these terms are Capitalist in nature and as such only mean something in reference to Capitalist economic theory. Acting as if they are real or concrete or real is biased in favor of Capitalism as the only form of economic theory. 104.254.91.18 (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The issue I raised was purely technical rather than political, and the terms used are simply descriptive. Whether the economy is 'capitalist' or not isn't really relevant. Peak-load price discrimination for example can occur in any system which requires 'demand smoothing' in the exchange of goods and services, not just those systems where capital is privately owned.

vote to delete this article[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

delete this article

1, thats not how you would propose to delete an article. 2, you need reasons for deletion. 3, do you want to explain your request. - SantiLak (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The 2012 nomination was ridiculous and misinformed. The idea that you could delete an article about a company worth $10-20B, with thousands of employees, and dozens of major articles about it daily, as non-notable is beyond serious comment. Silly-time on Wikipedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What is the "appropriate discussion page" on which to make comments?
The italicised "notice" in the box above fails to specify any.


when a hospital which serves hundred thousands is deleted just because the adminstrator has not heard about it. It make no sense to put this article which has no relation to other part of the world and limited to specific region.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.38.247.67 (talkcontribs)
That is totally not true, the worldwide operations are covered. Also your reasoning is not in line with WP policy on notability. - SantiLak (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello and a correction[edit]

Hi, I've just set up an account and wanted to introduce myself here: my name is Craig and I work at Uber Technologies. The reason I've created this account is that I'm interested in working with the Wikipedia community to help keep this article and other Uber-related pages up-to-date, by providing suggested edits on discussion pages. I'm getting advice on how to contribute and best practices for conflict of interest editors such as myself, but I'm always open to any questions or suggestions you might have!

As a first point of business for this article, I have a small correction to the introduction. This sentence includes two errors:

As of September 16, 2014, the service was available in 45 countries and more than 100 cities worldwide, and was valued at more than US$15 billion.

The article that is cited here is out of date, the number of cities where Uber operates is actually more than 200. The number of cities has been reported correctly in a few places, including The Next Web and the San Francisco Business Times. Likewise, the company's valuation quoted in that article is also not quite right, as it received a valuation of $18.2 billion in June this year.

Here's an updated sentence with new links for the correct numbers:

As of August 29, 2014, the service was available in 45 countries and more than 200 cities worldwide,[1] and was valued at US$18.2 billion.[2][3]

Is anybody here able to make this edit for me? Thanks, Craig at Uber (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit done, I appreciate the fact that you are willing not to edit but to suggest edits and allow other users to review them. It is also good that you made very clear that you represent a company which is in line with WP policy. I hope to cooperate with you in the future if you keep working in the way you are working now. - SantiLak (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Hoge, Patrick (August 29, 2014). "Uber doubles reach to 200 cities in four months". San Francisco Business Times. Retrieved November 7, 2014. 
  2. ^ Rusli, Evelyn (June 6, 2014). "Uber Gets Uber-Valuation". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved November 7, 2014. 
  3. ^ Goldman, David (June 6, 2014). "Uber Valued at $18.2 billion". CNN Money. Retrieved November 7, 2014. 

Whether to add Uber as also a cab company[edit]

Comments below. - SantiLak (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC) Until Talk Page discussion completes, please do not make changes involving uber as a cab company

Of course. (I'm actually conducting a report on the company.) Trust me, their entire model is basically that of a cab companies. The play on words is smart on their part, but let's be realistic, it's a cab service. Ride sharing for money? Yes, that's what a cab is.

Firstly, can all copyeditors please sign their Talk contributions? I am not completely certain, but the tone of the unsigned Talk content, such as the comment above, are written in a tone that indicates a particular viewpoint. I might be mistaken, but I think it is important for copyeditors to leave aside any issues they have with Uber, as the article is part of an online encyclopedia, and not an op-ed. Thanks. --Soulparadox (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you're mistaken Soulparadox. There is a great deal of controversy surrounding this company. I think a lot of us know that it actually is an illegal cab service, but prefer the service quality. However, I'm being objective here, and though I like Uber, facts are facts. It's a cab service. As one of the above commenters said, ride sharing for money is practically exactly what a cab does. Does it not? It honestly just feels like Uber is trying to twist words around to bypass laws. Just my 2 cents. -- theLegend (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Obviously, no. If you want to identify this kind of ridesharing service as a category or subcategory, that is just fine. Whether to make that category fall under taxicabs or livery or anything else is a matter of organizing information on the encyclopedia. But lumping them in with taxicabs to make a point without differentiating them is not helpful to the readers or the encyclopedia. Uber is not an illegal cab service, btw. There are different regulations in every city and state. In some cases they are skirting or breaking the law, or not operating at all. In other places it is permitted. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it's rather silly to not list Uber as also a cab company. If some one has just finished work, and needs a ride home, they take their phone out and contemplate whether to use a local taxi app or Uber. Both of the companies are providing identical services, so why should Uber be labeled as a "ride sharing service"? It makes no sense, they are providing an identical service to taxis; only difference is that you cannot hail one down. They're nearly identical. We should definitely add "cab" as one of, if not the main service provided by Uber. Also, in the general public, I'm pretty sure everyone views this as a cab. - Dayboydoh1 (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Not only can you not hail them but the drivers aren't dispatched. They can turn down requests for rides, its not the same as a cab company dispatcher telling one of their drivers to go to a place for a pickup. It uses hire cars and drivers and they get a cut. It provides a similar service to taxis but with important distinctions and a different type of business model that make it separate from a taxi company. Just because you want to make a point about Uber doesn't mean that we should lump them in with taxicab companies. - SantiLak (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry didn't see this before I disambiguated cab. According to Webster's, a taxicab is "a public passenger vehicle, especially an automobile, usually fitted with a taximeter." That's the service Uber provides. The taximeter is replaced by the app. There are differences in the business model and details of the service, but the notion of a taxi is a pretty loose one anyway. E.g. in rural areas "taxis" are dispatch-only and might not have taximeters, charging by the odometer. For practical purposes of the article is a useful analogy. --Cornellier (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Listen SantiLak, you're seriously misunderstanding things. When a cab driver is dispatched a trip, they have the option to accept or reject said trip. It's their choice. Uber does the exact same thing. Their drivers can also accept or reject. Another thing, drivers who drive cabs are also independent workers, they aren't "employees" of the cab companies. The only difference between a cab and Uber is that taxis can be hailed. That is it. The dispatching is basically identical, but instead of customers calling in to request a trip, Uber gets requests for trips through an app. Yes, it's obvious that Uber tries to get around this by claiming that they "connect drivers with people," but again, is that not exactly what a cab is? They also claim to provide "ride sharing services for money," and again, is that not exactly what a cab is? Uber is just playing on the words. Do you see how Uber and cabs are practically identical, but one of them just simply cannot be hailed? Let's be real here. Now let's update the page and make it accurate. --PavSidhu (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello PavSidhu (talk). Are you the author of the unsigned comments on this Talk page? I only ask, because it seems that you share the same absence of understanding in regard to formal tone. I am not implying that you are disrespectful, but opening a comment with "Listen SantiLak" is inappropriate in most Anglo cultures; however, I am not aware of your cultural heritage, so excuse me if I have misunderstood. Furthermore, your tone indicates that you are strongly against Uber, so I think this needs to be explored before your suggestions can be incorporated in the page. Wikipedia is not here to cast aspersions, such as "is just playing on words," on any company, but I presume that you are already aware of this. Can you please clarify your motivation further? Thanks. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The unsigned comments have nothing to do with me. Yeah, I think it may have come across that way, but I'm not against it, I actually use it here in my city. There has been a great deal of talk going on about the service in our city because Uber started to illegally operate here. I was just trying to separate the facts from fiction because the article honestly does seem off. Again, I have no motivation, but facts are facts. They've all been laid out. I don't feel like debating this anymore, but just know that the current Uber article isn't completely correct. Anyway, I'm done debating this. I guess you can have the final verdict Soulparadox. (talk) --Pavsidhu (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Facts are not facts, tho. Wikipedia is about the sum of human knowledge, not about discovering a hidden truth that differs. I this case, if Uber is actually a cab service and not something else, we would have to wait for that to sort out, not make arguments here about whether that is true or not. Uber may be characterized as illegal in some places by those who want to uphold an existing monopoly, but others say the monopolists are the ones being illegal, or that the question is what the law should be. Think of it this way. Uber doesn't hold a torch to Galileo as far as being revolutionary, but suppose we were back in that time writing the article about Galileo. Would we say "Galileo was an Italian physicist, mathematician, engineer, astronomer, and philosopher who played a major role…" as WIkipedia now does, or would we say "Galileo was an unauthorized illegal observer of the cosmos." - Wikidemon (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
No, this definitely needs to be updated. Uber is dispatching trips by the very definition of the word. The trips are dispatched, and then the drivers accept or reject (just like cab drivers do). I managed one of Uber's branches in a US State a few months, so I know very well how the business model works. Also, feel free to ask me any questions if you guys have any regarding the company." - Ryanmcgoughty (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the contributions everyone. So, is be your proposed wording of the subject Ryanmcgoughty (talk)? Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Illegal Cab?[edit]

unconstructive. WP:NOT#FORUM

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

From what I've learned from my research, Uber is basically operating as a cab that you cannot hail. They try to say "we are connecting drivers with people who need rides," or claim that they are a "ride sharing service." Let's be real for a second, the first one is simply a play on words, and the second one is basically a synonym for cab services. Many cab services even have identical apps that do the same thing because all Uber is doing is basically dispatching trips to drivers. Only difference is instead of customers having to call in, they simply tap a button on their smartphone. Keep in mind that a large majority of the world classifies this company as a cab service company.

A couple of the people here were being confused by how Uber's business model is different, and kept recharging my edits. All Uber is doing is avoiding regulation/insurance fees by hiding under this so called different business model. Anyone with an IQ over 15 understands that it's merely a controversial illegal cab service. That's why I think some of the changes that were made to the article are completely justified.

It makes no sense to claim that Uber is avoiding regulations without pointing to the specific regulations, or finding a reliable source about Uber's bending of the rules (which exist, and are included already). Taxis are regulated on a state by state and city by city level. I am confident that my IQ is over 15, incidentally. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Let's face it. This thing is basically a gypsy cab service. "Ridesharing." What a joke. All they're doing is avoiding regulation, insurance, and other fees by hiding behind this "ridesharing" nonsense. Take a hike Wikidemon, get your head out of your ass. Are you purposefully acting stupid? These guys are dispatching trips through an app. Ridesharing is when an individual going one way, offers a ride to another person for free. Uber drivers are roaming the streets just like cab drivers waiting for trip calls (AKA DISPATCH). Either Americans really are stupid and fail to see this, or you just can't deal with facts. What idiots. This article is a complete mess and obviously in accurate. Get your head out of your ass, and report some real facts.- Centenialsquare (talk) 1:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What is the "appropriate discussion page" on which to make comments concerning the above discussion, if not here?
The italicised "notice" in the box above fails to specify any.

Careless additions regarding controversies[edit]

I have made revisions today to address recent careless additions that were made, which are also in the same vein as other edits that have sought merely to discredit Uber, rather than adding to an encyclopedic article on the subject. Can copyeditors please be careful about how updates are presented—especially the Lead section, which is not just a dumping ground for the latest issues that surface in the media. I will assert once again that I have no connection with Uber whatsoever—I just want to uphold the Wikipedia standards that have served us well so far. I also know that other copyeditors have been doing their part to retain this page's credibility. Thanks. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I need to reiterate this point, as even though Uber remains a subject of controversy, Wikipedia is not the forum to air grievances. May I recommend citizen journalism, or contacting your local politician/member? Thanks. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Socking?[edit]

Most of the recent editing on the talk page trying to equate Uber and cab services seems to be coming from brand new single-purpose accounts with similar editing interests and understanding of sourcing. If this is you, please be aware that you are expected to maintain a single account and, if you have one, sign in to that account to edit. If you came here because somebody urged you to, please note the policy on WP:MEAT. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been seeing that and I share the same concerns of Wikidemon. - SantiLak (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Let's give it a day, if this continues we should probably ask for semi-protection and/or file a sock puppet report. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I would like to make it clear that I was about to self-revert my last edit after realizing I violated 3RR but a different user reverted it first. I did not intend to violate 3RR. This does not take away from the fact that it appears there are multiple SPA socks editing this page. - SantiLak (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you to the copyeditors who have identified this potential issue. It seems the fervent controversy has crossed over onto Wikipedia—when exactly, I don't know. This needs to be monitored, and hopefully those responsible will cease after reading this thread. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Santilak, you don't seem to understand what dispatch is[edit]

Cabs and Uber drivers both have the option to reject/accept trips. So what exactly about getting an uber dispatch trip is different than a cab dispatch trip? They're both dispatching. Please give me a solid explanation. The let's go with the "status quo" stuff is not going to cut it. This article needs to be an accurate representation of what the business model is. What is your rebuttal? Centenialsquare (talk) 1:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revistayugo (talkcontribs)

If you want to advance a personal opinion about how Uber is equivalent to cabs, there are plenty of places outside of Wikipedia to do so. Here, the point is that we do not write articles based on advocacy or personal opinion, but rather what the sources say. It may be the case that writers here and there have accused Uber of being an unlicensed cab service, there are some similarities between an obviously new form of service and the more traditional businesses, and various jurisdictions (but not others) have made that claim. If so, and if those claims are of due weight, we can report those claims. But it is not up to Wikipedia, and especially not up to groups of editors, to advocate one way or another based on their personal arguments over the facts. The advocacy for calling Uber a cab service in the past few days appears to be a coordinated effort by a group of related accounts, which raises additional concerns. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
But... what is the difference between Uber and any other cab company??? As a disinterested outsider, I have to say that the only difference obvious from the article is that Uber uses unlicensed drivers. No explanation is given for this particular difference, and it is not at all clear whether it is a significant enough difference to place Uber in a separate category from any other cab company.
I'm not arguing that it should be one way or the other. But I am saying that if Uber is different, the article needs to clearly and unambiguously explain how or why Uber is different, else it has failed as an encyclopedic article. Currently, the article doesn't explain the distinction, if any.
To use an analog: 90% of connifers are evergreens, and because of this fact most people assume that "conifer" is synonymous with"evergreen". Because of that common assumption, it is not sufficient to define Larix laricina as merely ...
  • A North American connifer.
Because that will usually leave the incorrect impression that it is an evergreen.
  • Larix laricina is a North American tree which, though a conifer, is not an evergreen.
...is better, because it makes a distinction. But instead of conveying useful information, it only conveys a mystery. It doesn't tell us why the larch isn't an evergreen, when in our experience viirtually every other conifer we've encountered is an evergreen. What makes larch different? Some minimal explanation of what an "evergreen" is, and how larch's qualities differ from that is in order. A single sentence solves the problem:
  • Although a conifer, the larch in not an evergreen (which retain their leaves all year), but is a deciduous tree which loses its leaves in the autumn.
This tells us that 1) the larch is a conifer but not evergreen; 2) why it is not an evergreen, by 3) succinctly presenting the difference between an evergreen and a deciduous tree.
Something similar is called for in the Uber article. If Uber is indeed somehow significantly distinct from any other cab company, the article needs to tell me how or why. Currently, it doesn't.

74.95.43.249 (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Missing information[edit]

There is nothing in this article telling who the drivers are. Do they work fulltime, parttime, students on weekends? I’m trying to figure out how an owner of a nice middle-class car has an incentive to cruise around Manhattan waiting for customers. Also, how much of the fare do the drivers keep and how does that compare to traditional taxis? The business model is only adequately described from the top down and for its technological novelty.Janko (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought a lot of this is already covered, but thanks for reviewing the article, as copyeditors can now find out if this information is needed, and where to source and place the content if it is. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Dispatch or "connecting passengers with drivers"[edit]

There appear to be some disagreements on what Uber's business model is. By definition, dispatching is offering a trip (for which payment will be given; either through credit cards or cash . These trips can be accepted/rejected) to an available driver who is working as an independent driver for any company. Now if you think about it, we could theoretically label Uber's model as "connecting passengers with drivers," but then what form of driver transportation can't be labeled this? This is too vague and broad. It's like saying, "Wal-Mart connects consumers with purchasable items, and so they are not in the retail industry" (hopefully you get the idea) Is that wrong? No, but they are in the retail industry, and they sell goods. I get that Uber is trying to establish itself as something different thank cabs, but when 90% of the cities it operates in, deems what they are doing as dispatch, should it not be recognized as that? What do you guys think? -- Pavsidhu (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

First, it is not up to us Wikipedia editors to decide what Uber's business model is. It is for the reliable sources to describe it. However, regarding the edit war that has been pursued by various single-purpose accounts in the lede, that is a definitional statement about what Uber is, not its business model. The point of that is to state briefly for the interested lay reader what Uber is and what it does so that they know they found the right article, it frames the issue, etc. At a very basic level, Uber's service publishes a phone app that lets riders book rides. That's all this statement is saying, that Uber operates via an app. There are many ways of phrasing it, but trying to wedge in the point that it is a "dispatch service" or "unregulated cab company" or whatever is besides the point. If it is in fact a dispatch service we would need a plurality of the significant reliable sources to say so, not an talk-page argument that this is logically the case. Uber is certainly very different than a traditional cab service in any event.
Please excuse my interjection here, but as regards the statement above to which I have added emphasis, this is exactly what the current article fails to convey.
I see a lot of editorial discussion in these "talk" pages concerning whether Uber is or is not a cab company, and whether it is or is not legal. Personally, I couldn't care less which of these it is, if any. But if I come to an encyclopedia to find out what something IS, it should tell me that, in clear, unambiguous language.
    • This article doesn't do that. It needs to.
I'll step back in my box now, thanks. :)

74.95.43.249 (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The Walmart example is a false analogy. It's plain that Walmart is a retail chain and all the sources say that. Trying to prove that Uber is a dispatch service would be more like arguing whether Ebay, or Amazon, or Groupon are retail chains based on how they sell products, who takes the money, who ships, etc. They are what they are, and the best way to describe their online presence is that they run online shopping sites. Similarly, Uber runs a mobile-based car reservation service. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC) So, I blocked one the editors here about the whole dispatch thing on account of edit warring. But after searching for sources myself, editors arguing in favor of this dispatching language may have a point that Uber is described as a "taxi dispatch service":

  • [1]: The taxi dispatch and ride-share service Uber just got a bump from United Airlines.
  • [2]: The license approved Tuesday would also allow Uber to dispatch taxicabs...
  • [3]: UberTaxi is permitted at O’Hare International Airport and Midway Airport, because the service links to professional taxi drivers and Uber dispatches the licensed cabs themselves

At this point, I'd like editors to stop reverting each other and to start discussing these in light of actual sources. I, JethroBT drop me a line 11:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

As editors we need to use some discretion for how to best summarize a simple fact like this, particularly in the lede. This is a sentence in the lede, which is supposed to be an uncited summary to identify the subject of the article, not to prove anybody's point. The purpose of the sentence, and what it describes, is not a dispatch service, but rather the fact that Uber offers its service through a mobile app. The several-word identifiers that news sources use to describe what Uber is, or how its app works, are all over the map. The vast majority don't call it a dispatch service when pointing out, as we do, that the company's service is offered through an app. A random sampling: Riders "arrange for limousines" via the app,[4], it is a "car service app",[5] an "app-based car service",[6] a "car hiring app",[7] it "matches nonprofessional drivers for peer-to-peer ridesharing",[8] etc. Keep in mind that a number of these descriptions may be inaccurate or misleading. A spate of new editors showed up a couple weeks ago to shoehorn into the article that Uber as an illegal cab service. Sound editing principles are to keep such material out until and unless there is a consensus for it, and when we do consider it not to base content decisions on POV. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, that's fair. I do want to note though that Uber appears to be both an application that facilitates ridesharing and also dispatches taxis in multiple cities through a service called Uber Taxi ([9]), and that might be a point worth building a little bit in this article, though perhaps not necessarily in the lead. I agree with your assessment of the sources; I've only found one article explicitly describing the carsharing program (UberX) as a taxi-dispatch service (e.g. [10], In September 2013,California’s Public Utilities Commission classified UberX as a transportation provider because it functions like a taxi dispatch.) That said, there does appear to be Uber Taxi in many cities including NYC, Washington DC, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, and others. ([11], [12], [13]). I do not think it is POV to describe the general functions of the application per these sources. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
(out of order, responding to JethroBT) Good point. We should build up in the body of the article that Uber as once of its services "Uber Taxi" allows passengers to hail a taxi. We would have to explore what that means, if they are truly taxicabs, if that makes Uber a dispatch with respect to taxis, and what it means to be a dispatch service (again, the sources are all over the map in the nouns and verbs they use). My impression of a dispatch service (and that of most of the sources that describe what it is) is a central office somewhere where a guy gets on the radio and calls out ride requests for drivers affiliated with his company to negotiate. Taxi fleets have no doubt automated some, but whether a software service that replaces this function is a "dispatch" or not may be a matter of extending an old definition to a new business activity to see if it fits, which becomes an interesting question of sourcing, editorial discretion, and original research. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It is a bit challenging to tell from the above discussion exactly what proposal is being discussed. WOuld someone be willing to clearly state what the proposal is, and then it would be easier for editors to offer support or opposition with rationale. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

@N2e: I think the general idea initially was to change how the company is described wholesale, including in the lead, to a "taxi dispatch service" from a "ridesharing service". There doesn't appear to be consensus for this because most RS do not describe Uber that way.
Based on our discussion so far, what I'm suggesting is that:
  1. we leave the lead alone and maintain the "ridesharing service" description, and
  2. under the 2012-present section of History, that we describe that Uber implemented an option in their app called Uber Taxi that dispatches actual taxis drivers to customers, and that it has been implemented in multiple cities.
So, if folks want to support or oppose that idea, please indicate that below so we can start gathering a consensus on the matter. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That sounds fine to me. My concern was shoehorning a potentially POV issue, however convoluted, into the lead. I see nothing wrong with the word "dispatch" as a verb for sending taxis to meet a rider. When wording and sourcing it, I wonder if "multiple cities" is specific enough; presumably Uber has a different group of services organized in different ways for each market in the US and internationally. Or is Uber Taxi the same everywhere it goes? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT the proposal. The "ridesharing service" description seems most accurate to what the company is doing, with the proposed exception that "dispatch" does seem to apply to the one aspect (option) of the Uber service that allows the Uber app to call for a regular commercial taxi rather than endeavor to arrange a rideshare. N2e (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Criminal drivers[edit]

Did I miss something, or is there any reason why this entry doesn't mention anything about Uber drivers who have criminal records or have committed crimes against Uber customers? There are many stories in WP:RS, of which this is one of the most reliable roundups:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Risky-Ride-Uber-Investigation-256604571.html Risky Ride: Who's Behind the Wheel of Uber Cars? How safe is Uber? The NBC4 ITeam investigates. By Joel Grover and Keith Esparros May 2, 2014

Tadeusz Szczechowicz drove the streets of Chicago for a year, despite five prior arrests and two convictions for burglary and disorderly conduct.

Syed Muzzafar had a prior conviction for reckless driving, but he cleared the Uber background check and was behind the wheel New Year's Eve when he was arrested for hitting and killing a 6-year-old girl in San Francisco.

And, Jigneshkumar Patel was arrested for battery of an UberX passenger, a charge he said is "rubbish." Still, the UberX driver had a 2012 conviction for DUI.

Tanya and Daniel Sackler didn't know anything about the past of their UberX driver. He identified himself only by his first name.

The Sacklers said he stole $2,500 in cash and personal items from them after he picked them up from LAX and dropped them off at their West Hollywood condo. The Sacklers filed a police report, saying the driver arrived at their home and quickly began unloading their baggage.

"He took them all and he put them in a pile," Daniel said.

While the Sacklers were dealing with their luggage, Tanya Sackler said their driver jumped back behind the wheel and quickly drove off with her purse, her husband's briefcase, a wallet with hundreds of dollars in it, and an iPad.

They had the driver's cell number, so they texted him right away, only to be told he was too busy to talk to them at the moment. The Sacklers said when they finally spoke to him, the driver told them he was not responsible for items left in his car.

--Nbauman (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There is some controversy, not (yet) covered in the article, about Uber not conducting adequate background checks on its drivers. I'm not sure whether this is a system-wide or market by market thing. Individual stories of what a single employee did aren't terribly encyclopedic however reliable the sourcing unless they are watershed moments that have a big effect on or help define the company. But as part of a patter they can be relevant to what the company is and does. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan section[edit]

Given that the best we can do for the moment in regard to the Taiwan section is a Chinese-language citation—unusual, as the English-language media is adept at keeping up with Uber matters as they happen—it would be great if a copyeditor who understands the article could ensure that the section is accurate. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal[edit]

I just removed a small section at the bottom concerning the alleged rape in India. The keyword here is "alleged", because it is alleged and not yet proven, inserting it in violates BLP ( he's not yet been proven guilty). Unless there's some reliable sources that show a crime really was committed it would need to remain out. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 13:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I think the BLP concern is avoided if we don't name the victim or the accused. It's too early to say whether this will be significant enough to include in the article at all, or where. The mere fact that a driver committed (or was accused of committing) a serious crime isn't very relevant, as that fact would hold true of most if not all large companies. If it leads to a significant affecting the company, for example if the ban is more than short term, then it might be worth mentioning in the history or national operations section; if it leads to regulation it might go there. If it becomes a lasting scandal it could be added to a new section about inadequate screening of drivers leading to drivers committing crimes, something that has happened elsewhere. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. But let's keep an eye on it. Knowing the slow pace of the Indian justice system, it will take a long time to be resolved, but when it is resolved, if the result is worthy of being included in this article, it should go here. This article has had enough white washing already. Chisme (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Services[edit]

could there be a list of services that Uber provides including their limited time only services? For instance, in Washington, DC, Uber offers UberX (regular, XL, and XL with Car-seat); Black Car (regular, SUV, and Blackcar with carseat, and SUV with carseat) and Taxi. They are also running a trial of Uber Essentials, where you can order things from the app and a driver will deliver them to you.[1]

In Miami, I've read that they have UberSelect, with high end cars.[2] Dfl8cornell (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Surge pricing and Sydney crisis[edit]

The 2014 Sydney hostage crisis incident makes an excellent illustration of Uber's automated pricing model and of Uber's sensitivity and responsiveness to emergencies. That is to say, demand shot up, surge pricing kicked in to bring more drivers out to handle the demand, and Uber made an executive decision to remedy the situation. This is exactly the sort of "how a company operates" information that readers would expect under a "pricing" section in a corporate article. "NotNews" by the way, is seriously dated. I wouldn't suggest going over to the hostage crises article currently under development and telling the editors there stop there work on the basis that Wikipedia is not news. Rklawton (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm reverting this material for the second time (I hadn't seen the above comment).[14] What on earth does this have to do with Uber? There are dozens or perhaps hundreds of examples where people complained about Uber's "surge pricing". The fact that the algorithm increased the prices due to a terrorist incident this time (as opposed to a holiday, natural disaster, what have you) does not help explain the pricing system, and just feeds into the weird-stuff-that-happened-on-uber meme. This is minor news of the day stuff and does not fit in with explaining what Uber is, how it works, etc. If this truly becomes the symbol of negative reaction to Uber's pricing, then we can include it — but right now, a few hours after the incident with the hostage crisis still happening and Uber tyring to explain itself, this really looks like over-eager scandal-gazing. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've moved this info to the paragraph on surge pricing, and set that apart under its own subheading. I've also removed a superfluous mention of the Delhi rape case, as that is already covered in the India section. There is a bigger structural problem with the article. The "International expansion" section reads like a scattershot of incidents and scandals rather than telling the company's history, and then we have a regulatory opposition section that also sometimes tells of the specific incidents that trigger regulatory scrutiny. I think the article would be better organized by moving all of the nation and city-specific material into the subsections for different countries, and mentioning the launches, reception, incidents, and regulatory position with each country. However, we do have to be careful with WP:NOT#NEWS. The fact that the news media, and perhaps people in general, are particularly quick to read scandal into various negative happenings involving Uber ties in with Uber's growing reputation for bad behavior at a corporate level, it is not necessarily related to the actual service Uber is offering. As such, to cover it in the same breathless way as the daily press is to get caught up in the same opinionated judgement. There are some articles analyzing this.[15] - Wikidemon (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Gypsy Cabs to "rideshare"[edit]

I believe that the article does not address the changes that inspired the government to make since before the arrival of looper rideshare companies would definitely be labeled as Gypsy cabs but after their arrival they convinced government officials that because they were dispatching trips via the app and still completely ignoring existing taxi laws they could relabel the term gypsy cab as a rideshare service. I think that this should be discussed at least to a little bit of an extent in the article because it definitely did change the way that taxi regulations were in effect and thus it ultimately changed eat chips the cab to move under the exploited term as a rideshare service.- Powedulninja72627 (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powedulninja72627 (talkcontribs)

Usage of word "ridesharing" in first sentence[edit]

I believe that the usage of the word "rideshare" in the first sentence, along with the link to the Carpooling page, is inaccurate and plays into a media mythology that companies like Uber have spent copious amounts of money to craft. Uber is not a ride-sharing service, though many use the phrase ride-sharing to refer to them. I believe a better term for them would be Transportation network company (as used on the Lyft page), or simply as a taxi company.

Why Uber is not a ride-sharing company: "ride sharing," and particularly with the current link to the Carpooling page in place, implies a free, friendly exchange between individuals. For instance, with carpooling people typically take turns driving their vehicles for each other in order to reduce their gas usage, environmental impact, and to give themselves a bit more flexibility. The word "ride share" typically refers to something like a carpool, or an informal arrangement like what you find on the craigslist "rideshares" section -- e.g. "Hey, I'm driving down from SF to LA this weekend and have two extra seats." People often chip in money in such arrangements, but -- crucially -- the ride-share-er does not operate as a 24/7 business, and *already has a destination in mind*, hence the phrase "ride share." They are *sharing* their *ride*, *not* sharing their vehicle, or acting as a /for hire/ driving service.

Uber, however, operates on-demand taxi and taxi-like services. Their drivers do this as a full-time or part-time job, are required to meet certain requirements, and are, crucially, not in the process of making some kind of random personal trip when they decide to pick someone up. This is a job for them.

So to be concrete here: I propose that the usage of the phrase "ridesharing" in the first paragraph be removed and replaced with Transportation network company. I am not opposed to the usage of "rideshare" further into the article, as it's a popular term used to refer to services such as Uber, but I believe that even there we owe it to readers to offer a small clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.60.54 (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I've actually brought this up before in the discussion, and I agree. The term "ride-share" is being exploited. It makes no sense in terms of how Uber's business model is layed out. Drivers who work for the company drive around, or even wait, until Uber sends them a trip request by a customer (dispatch), and then they give the said customer a ride. This is not "ride-sharing" in any sense of the word. A ride-share occurs when someone who is headed somewhere, and a friend/stranger/whoever is also going to the same place, jumps along with the driver (and for free). Uber drivers are being payed to give customers rides, and just like cab drivers, they roam around until Uber dispatches a trip to them via the app. At the very minimum, we should change the "ride-share" label to a "Transportation Network Company" label, or more accurately as a "cab service." Because the Transportation Network Company poses another issue. What about cabs that also have dispatch apps? Are cabs then also Transportation Network Companies? --User:Pavsidhu (Pavsidhu) 22:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Due to its successful application of the TNC title on the Lyft page, it seems reasonable to use it on this page too. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't remember much about the last discussion, except that it was a bit chaotic. Anyway, TNC is more specific and correct than ride-sharing. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Just an interesting aside: the Baidu CEO called Uber part of the "car hailing industry" on Wednesday—I am not proposing a change, but am wondering if this is going to be the new way to describe Uber? Is it appropriate for WIkipedia if they do adopt it? I do not know yet, but thought I would share it anyway. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Driver distraction and WP:NOTNEWS[edit]

I've rephrased this section on a recent NYT report that Comfr added recently to this. There are some other articles about it, but they basically refer back to the NYT article (see Kansas City Business Journal, Business Insider, Fast Company). This feels a little not news-y to me, and so if folks think we should wait on this to see how this story develops first, perhaps we should. Let me know what you think. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it warrants a separate section and will place it within the History section. It strikes me as another poorly disguised stab at Uber's reputation on this page—again, I am neutral on the matter, but Wikipedia is not the forum for such content, as we all know. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Someone already did a great job of sorting this out! Anyway, thanks for bringing it to the Talk section. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Driver distraction is not a problem particular to Uber. All competitive dispatching systems share it, particularly taxis. It does not belong in the article on Uber unless there is some special problem with Uber's system. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's the news from the Times article, "Two lawsuits, one filed against Uber and another against Lyft, contend the services are negligent by violating California’s law against driver use of hand-held electronic devices." That is a potential game changer. Seems unlikely though. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving "regulatory opposition" to a new article?[edit]

Hi all. Just wondering about moving most of the regulatory opposition section to a new article called something like "Regulatory opposition to Uber" or maybe "Regulatory views on Uber". It seems to take up an inordinate amount of space at the moment. Cheers Ballofstring (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

An interesting suggestion, and if things keep going as this may be inevitable. On the one hand, this section gets longer and longer to the point where it overwhelms the article; on the other, trying to keep each of Uber's disputes with regulators short and to the point means we can't give them a full explanation. Putting them in a separate article could be a more orderly way to present the information, although from experience with other companies that drew controversy (Facebook, Craigslist) you'll find that the child article gets a lot less traffic, and becomes harder and harder to maintain as people constantly want to add every latest news story. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the insight Wikidemon, as this is what needs to be considered. I don't have enough experience in the area, but I trust copyeditors like Wikidemon to know how to best proceed. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of subsections and headings[edit]

Even though I had no problem at all with the previous layout of the page, I have revised the subsections and headings under the History section—which reflect an earlier version of the article—as I observed that they restricted the ability to update the History section if the content did not fit under the pre-existent headings. For example, a recent update that was more appropriate for the History section, was entered in a newly created section that is unnecessary and just adds to an already lengthy article. Of course, I am open to other suggestions. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I divided one of the History subsections today, as the large amount of content hampered the effectiveness of the subsections. If others object, then I am open to reversion/alternatives/discussion as always. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

What are the revenues and profits from Uber?[edit]

Why Wikipedia doesn´t post the revenues and profits from Uber? If the company is worth $ 40 bn. does it means that its revenues are $ 40 bn.? Or just $ 200 million, like any small company? If the company is worth $ 40 bn. does it means its profits are $ 4 bn.? Or nothing. Otherwise, it is a fraud and investors will lose 90% of their money.--83.37.96.205 (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

How to cover regulation and other legal responses[edit]

The consensus of this RfC is:

  1. to move most of the information in the "Regulatory opposition" to a spin-off article, Legal status of Uber's service.
  2. to trim the "Regulatory opposition" section so that it complies with Wikipedia:Summary style.
A spin-off article has been created, but the trimming of the "Regulatory opposition" section has not been done yet.

If necessary, editors should further discuss how to trim the section.

Cunard (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi again, everyone. As I mentioned in my last post, my name is Craig and I work at Uber Technologies. There have been a lot of edits to the article in the last several months, many involving adding information about the legal and regulatory responses to Uber's expansion into various markets. As Uber becomes available in different cities and countries, there has been a lot of media coverage of this issue, which has then been added into this article. It's hard not to notice that the Regulatory opposition now makes up the bulk of this article's content. I see that User:Ballofstring, User:Wikidemon and User:Soulparadox have briefly discussed this above, so I'd like to add a few thoughts, and hopefully start a bigger discussion.

The regulatory and legal responses are certainly part of Uber's short history to date, and definitely have a place in this article. However, I think that the way it is covered in this article in exhaustive detail is overwhelming to readers and reads more like a news ticker than an encyclopedia entry. I appreciate that editors are working hard here and it must be extremely tricky to make sure an article stays up to date while keeping details encyclopedic. Due to my obvious conflict of interest in this case, I know it's best for me not to be bold and make any changes, so I want to open up a discussion to editors and especially those with lots of experience on company articles. Although the usual practice would be to start a discussion on this Talk page, I'd like to open a "Request for Comment" to help bring in a broader range of experienced editors who can offer an objective view on what to do about the Regulatory opposition part of the article. I hope this sounds good to everyone here. Craig at Uber (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Should the regulatory and legal issues in this article be summarized?[edit]

The section of the article discussing regulatory and legal responses to the Uber app (Regulatory opposition) is very long and exhaustively detailed. As new responses are reported in the media, more is being added, creating a "news ticker" effect that is not very encyclopedic. My question for editors is how this information would be best treated, particularly whether it should be summarized here or potentially split off into its own article. Craig at Uber (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I think it should remain, as Uber seems to have a lot of issues in several countries, and in some countries, say India, each city/state seems to have some history with Uber. An alternative would be splitting it into Regulatory opposition to Uber. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The bot sent me. I think a WP:SUMMARY spin-off article would be good. Uber has been deliberately controversial because (paying and obbligating a multitude of independent contractors into) breaking the law is an actual part of their professed business model. It seems like only a matter of time before that catches up with them, but in the mean time they are generating a huge amount of press that will likely continue to balloon this article. EllenCT (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm also in favour of splitting the article into a spin-off Regulatory opposition to Uber, but I think it would need a better title than that, to reflect its not just regulatory opposition but also just a general regulatory issues, where laws need to be updated even if lawmaker aren't opposed to Uber... Ballofstring (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This idea of a sub-article due to this article getting close to WP:TOOBIG might be a great idea.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it's a good idea to have a child article about regulatory opposition legal status of Uber's service [broader scope per EllenCT's comment above], where the subject can be explored in more depth without overwhelming this article with detail. That doesn't mean removing it here, it means hitting the main and biggest points in summary fashion, with a link to the other article. In case anybody is concerned, at the risk of a content fork (not a POV fork or coatrack, mind you, just the risk of losing version control when duplicating content) we could create the child article first to make sure it meets quality standards, at least as useful as the section in this article, before making a final decision. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I think Legal status of Uber's service sounds good. Would people be comfortable if I started that article? Then we could develop that, and over time – if it works – trim down the main article to a summary? Ballofstring (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Also summoned by the bot. The article is at 48kb, just shy of the 50 kb where splitting discussions are usually started. But the section is notable and splitting it to a daughter article makes sense as it can stand on its own without a fast nomination for deletion. A summery on this page of the new daughter page and a link to it on this one per WP:SUMMARY. AlbinoFerret 00:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay seeing as I think everyone was in favour of creating a child article I created it at Legal status of Uber's service. Hope that's okay! Ballofstring (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks all for participating in this RfC and for offering such constructive responses. It seems like everyone is agreed on 1) creating a child article for a detailed discussion of the legal and regulatory status of Uber and 2) summarizing the material in this article -- and it's great to see that User:Ballofstring has already begun work on this. I'm glad that editors have found a good way forward to stop this article becoming overwhelmed by all of the information available on this topic, and I'm interested to see the new article take shape, as well as the process of summarizing the material here. I'm not sure on the best etiquette for ending the RfC. For now I will leave it open in case of additional thoughts and while the summarizing process is still to take place. If someone more experienced wants to go ahead and close it, however, that would be fine too. Craig at Uber (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Trim Much of this section is overly-detailed and uses an excessive number of sub-headers, adding significant undue weight. In particular, I note that an excessive amount of content is regarding a debate about the laws in that particular country and whether they are loose or strict, in a manner that is not specifically related to Uber. We should trim it down to something more focused on the subject of this article (Uber, not transportation regulation), then see what to do with what's left. I also noticed it has a dedicated Controversy section, which should be looked into along the lines of WP:CRITICISM. CorporateM (Talk) 15:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Hey there User:CorporateM and everyone involved here so far (User:Rsrikanth05, User:EllenCT, User:RightCowLeftCoast, User:Wikidemon, User:AlbinoFerret and User:Ballofstring). It definitely seems like the consensus is to summarize the section on legal issues in this article. I'm looking to follow up on my earlier post and ask for help from any interested editors to continue working on summarizing the information on regulation and other legal issues. Are any editors currently working on this? Although I know it's best for me not to edit the article, I'd be happy to help if I can, either contributing to user space drafts or to any proposed wording here. Craig at Uber (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I think this page could be semi-protected...[edit]

Judging by recent IP vandalism and edit war potential, at least. 121.220.113.177 (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Regulatory opposition[edit]

What do you think about adding this to the third paragraph? Uber's legal problems worldwide it's cc-licensed (see infographics) and well sourced. --87.163.110.172 (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've uploaded the image to Wikimedia commons and also put it into the article. – Ballofstring (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Great work! Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Great work! Although you could have cropped out the CC licence. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll crop out the CC licence tonight :-) One thing I wasn't sure about on the Commons was which version of CC-BY to put it under when it didn't specify on the image. So I just put it under 4.0 international - do you think that's a fair assumption? Ballofstring (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds fair to me. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional Content under Promotions[edit]

In March 2015, Uber offered luxury car-rental service in collaboration with Dream Drive in Singapore until 20 May 2015.[1] Charminrong (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ Hongzuo Liu. "Uber offers rides in Lamborghinis, Maseratis in Singapore", CNET, March 23, 2015. Retrieved on 2015-03-25.

Removing the outdated infographic?[edit]

Hey everyone, I do appreciate the inclusion of infographics into the article, but the one added to Regulatory opposition is outdated and no longer an accurate illustration of Uber's presence in the US and elsewhere. In many cases depicted on the map that's now in the article, new regulations have gone into effect. Many of these updates occurred in late 2014, or very recently in 2015.

For any editors who might not have seen my posts here before, as I mentioned in my first post, my name is Craig and I work at Uber Technologies. I'm not going to make any edits to the article but plan to come to the Talk page with thoughts and suggestions from time to time.

Now, in regards to the infographic, there are a lot of inaccuracies, so I've put a sampling of them in collapsed format to make this less overwhelming. You'll find each inaccuracy noted along with a news article as support:

I'm definitely interested in hearing feedback on this. If you guys agree that the infographic is no longer an accurate depiction, I'd appreciate an editor removing it. Thanks, Craig at Uber (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to this infographic? If so, I can't immediately say for sure it is out of date, but it is indeed very likely that Uber has suffered legal issues in more locations. More generally, I'm not a big fan of infographics that are likely to be out of date almost immediately. On the other hand, it does at least appear to be freely licensed. Overall, I do think it should be removed purely on the basis that it would be extremely hard to keep it up to date. As such, I've been bold and removed it. If another editor disagrees with me, they can reinstate it. If there's a better way of keeping the graphic up to date, I'd love to hear it. --Yamla (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Yamla! I agree also that having information that goes out of date quickly is not ideal. On that note, per the discussion above, the whole section on the company's legal issues was due to be summarized. As I shouldn't edit the article myself, are you able to take a look at that? Craig at Uber (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not going to be able to help out on that as I won't be able to edit Wikipedia for the next week or so. Hopefully someone else is able to help out, though!

Summarizing Regulatory opposition[edit]

Hi again, everyone. As editors reading this might have seen, the Request for Comment discussion above ended with the consensus to move the details from this article about regulation and other legal issues into a new article, and to summarize them here in line with WP:Summary Style. While moving the text into the new article has happened, the summary of Regulatory opposition has not. As this is the more involved part, it's totally understandable that it may take a bit more time to get quite right. In the meantime, the long section is continuing to attract more and more detail, even while existing parts become outdated.

To help get editors started with the summarizing process, I'd like to present a draft summary as a starting point. The draft aims to give a general overview of the regulatory and legal landscape facing Uber, without going into all of the minutiae for every country and city. It's best for me not to be bold and add this in myself because of my conflict of interest, as I work for Uber Technologies. My hope is that this draft will work to summarize the section, or at least be a springboard to start that summarization process.

Here it is:

Anyone willing to look this over and start the summarizing process? Thanks, Craig at Uber (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a good starting point for the article and well sourced. AlbinoFerret 12:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I think we can take the proposed content more or less in toto, with a little organization and editing for tone. I would divide it between US and then international, and downplay what seems to be the "after initial trouble, everybody is getting along now" implication. That is a conclusion that would have to be better sourced, and even if true, describing it as a "new commitment to cooperation" and praising it as increasing expansion sounds like corporate-speak. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Another option would be to use the lede of the newly made daughter page. I dont care which one is used, make the edits and add the proposed, or the lede of the page. But I think something should be done before editors start adding things to the section that was moved. AlbinoFerret 13:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret and Wikidemon, thanks for getting back to me and reading over the summary draft. I tend to agree that the section does need to be summarized soon before even more details get added to it. It sounds like you're both in favor of the draft, with some tweaks. Due to my COI it isn't appropriate for me to edit the article, so would one or both of you be able to make the edits? Craig at Uber (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikidemon seems to have edits in mind, its probably best if they do it. AlbinoFerret 15:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll give it a swing in the next few days if I can get a break from real life - Wikidemon (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Just spotted that Wikidemon has made the edits in the article and it looks great, thanks! Craig at Uber (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Commission hikes and drivers' union movement[edit]

I noticed we don't have anything on this news or any of its earlier background information. How extensive is the unionization movement? EllenCT (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Obscurification[edit]

Man, this article is useless. The only thing that is even remotely helpful is the "illegal cab?" section on this talk page. Even it fails to answer some basic questions, but the gist appears to be that uber is operating an unregulated cab service. it is hard to imagine (other than by utilizing mobile technology to avoid detection) how it could be allowed to operate with the obvious public safety issues that it raises. Who ensures the vehicles involved are safe? Who ensures (and insures) the drivers are qualified and also safe? are the vehicles and drivers employees of uber or just people who sign up or pay some fee to be regietered as instant cabbies with their own junker cars? It will be interesting to see what happens when somebody uses uber to begin scamming, robbing, or worse hapless riders.

Article talk pages are not a forum for venting about the subject of the article or the supposed failures of the Wikipedia project. In answer your possibly rhetorical questions, a good start would be to actually read the article and follow some of the citation links to the secondary sources that write about the company. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Why unlicensed?[edit]

There needs to be some explanation of why Uber prefers to use unlicensed drivers. How are these drivers insured -- or are they? Who is liable if an unlicensed driver has an accident? What happens if one gets stopped for a traffic violation, with an passenger in the cab? How is the level of driving skill determined for the drivers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It's going to be all but impossible to answer these at the moment. Uber deliberately won't reveal the specific details of their insurance, though there's some hope a court will compel them to do so in the near future. They claim this is a trade secret. As to why they prefer unlicensed drivers, I think the answer is obvious but unless we can find a reliable citation, it'd just be speculation. If a driver gets stopped for a traffic violation, that'd be the driver's concern, at least under Canadian law as I understand it; this may be different in other jurisdictions. As far as I know, the level of driving skill is unimportant to Uber. Certainly, they don't require the appropriate commercial driver's license here in Canada, though arguably this doesn't imply a different level of skill. In summary, most of the questions you ask are going to be very hard to answer using reliable citations, as Uber has gone out of their way to prevent this. --Yamla (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for Company History[edit]

Hey again, everyone. I've been working on a proposal for the article's History section to make the development of the company clearer, and the text easier to follow. Paying close attention to how sections in similar articles are organized and written, the proposal I'd like to share offers a chronological sequence of events, rather than grouping information on Uber's history into themed subsections based on topic. The current History also uses a lot of direct quotations from sources, so this proposal aims to eliminate as many of those as possible. Would be great to have editors read through and see if this would be a good update for the existing History.

To make it easier for editors here to read and offer feedback or make edits to the draft I'm suggesting, I've placed it in my user space: User:Craig at Uber/Uber History Draft

Here's a quick run-down of the specific changes in the proposed draft vs. the current:

  1. Re-organized the section into three clear chronological subsections
  2. Expanded information on the foundation of the company and brought all the early funding details together with the information on the company's early days, including adding more detail on initial funding
  3. Removed details on and hiring of consultants and our board of directors. These details should be included in the article, but perhaps would be best within a Corporate information type of section?
  4. Cleaned up the International growth subsection, summarizing instead of listed each individual city and adding a summary of the types of pushback Uber has received internationally
  5. Reduced the details on uberPOOL to a concise summary, paring down the undue weighted discussion of uberPOP and uberPOOL in the current version
  6. Removed a few items that seem unnecessarily detailed, including Ice Prince Zamani as Rider Zero in Nigeria (every city has a rider zero, and mentioning all of them would be overkill)

Just in case anyone missed my earlier posts here, I'm Craig and I work at Uber Technologies. As part of my role, I'm acting as Uber's representative on Wikipedia and coming to the Talk page with points of discussion and suggestions, as needed.

As this is the first longer draft I've proposed here, I'd appreciate any feedback that editors have. My aim with this is to make the article a better experience for readers and easier to maintain for editors, so if there are any edits that would further improve that, let me know. Craig at Uber (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on a suggestion from User:AlbinoFerret, I'm opening up an RfC here to get more eyes on my proposed update for the company history. What do editors think of the draft? Can this be used to update the History section? Craig at Uber (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Please withdraw this RfC. It is not an appropriate use of RfC - there has been no discussion of this proposed edit here on Talk that I can see and there is no clear dispute that needs to draw wider community input to resolve. Please do not abuse the dispute resolution process. You should simply have posted your draft with an Template:Request edit. Would you please do that? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
It's fine to post here, no abuse, but I'm not sure an RfC is the best way to get it done. The wheels of Wikipedia turn slowly, and I know I've been meaning to pay some attention to this. I'll see if I can make some time in the next few days. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
A "dispute" is not required to submit an RFC, but the request for comment is obviously not neutral and I don't expect you'll get any meaningful input from such a sweeping RFC, as oppose to focusing on one thing at-a-time. Regarding being a "representative" of Uber, we do not allow Group Accounts. What I mean by that is you are only allowed to contribute to Wikipedia as an individual, and not as a representative of a group of people that control your edits off-wiki.
Regarding the draft, I can take a look at it if you're comfortable with that. CorporateM (Talk) 01:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@CorporateM: regarding the accounts, what Craig is doing is allowed. See bullet point 4 of WP:ISU in the username policy: "usernames...such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA" are acceptable". A person can be a representative of a group, but an account can't imply it represents multiple people. Stickee (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm.... I wasn't complaining about the name of the account itself, but the "imply it represents a group of people". CorporateM (Talk) 02:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, Wikidemon and CorporateM, as you've seen, I've been trying to get editors to take a look at this draft by leaving a request here. The reason I opened this RfC was that I was encouraged by another editor since I was struggling to get any comments at all. From what I read at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, it didn't sound like this process should only be used for disputes and I've used an RfC here before; that time editors' feedback was very positive. Obviously, I don't want to abuse any processes on Wikipedia, so I'm glad to see Wikidemon and CorporateM's comments here that it is not abuse—phew!—on the other hand, I'd be ok with closing the RfC if you think it's not appropriate in this case. It seems that I'm receiving contradictory advice here, so I'd appreciate some clarity.
Re: my statement above describing myself as representing Uber, this is simply to say that I'm the official individual designated by Uber to offer suggestions / make request etc. here. So, no, not a group account. Finally, I'm ok with you looking at the draft, CorporateM, so long as you feel comfortable with it and don't find there to be any conflict of interest (I think you previously mentioned preferring not to get involved, which is why I mention it). Craig at Uber (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The user name is completely fine under our username policy and several editors have been using similar names for a long time - the name signifies a single person and clearly discloses the COI; I actually think this is a great practice for paid editors and wish more of them would do it, since it makes COI disclosure very very clear - it is optimum transparency. I am generally very willing to work with paid editors who comply with the spirit and letter of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; we sometimes get great content suggestions from them, and the more they work with the community the more use-able those suggestions become (which is better for everybody - less time wasted on back-and-forth and more good content in WP). However, I will not respond to this RfC which I see as an abuse of the RfC tool - per the page on that, "RfC is one of several processes available within Wikipedia's dispute resolution system." There is no dispute here and no policy issue that needs to gather wide consensus so it can be adopted- there is just (to be blunt) a paid editor wanting a faster response to the content they want reviewed. Waiting for responses from volunteers here, is part of the "deal", and abusing a DR tool to get a faster response is not OK. I understand that someone advised you to do it Craig, but people give poor advice all the time. I would have responded to an "edit request" (I have a line of them, this would be about 5th in line. ) Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

General Comments[edit]

I began reviewing and implementing the proposed content, but I'm not sure if the article even ended up in a substantially better place. Despite the description of the changes being purely copyediting-oriented, in actuality the proposed draft removed a lot of countries from being mentioned at all, as well as some legal disputes with some of those countries. However, many of these legal disputes feel out of place, since there is a dedicated section for lawsuits, which smacks of inappropriate in itself. Many of the Criticisms and Controversies are listing off individual, trivial incidences of car accidents, etc. I'm not quite sure what is the best way to handle it at this moment. In a similar case on another page we ended up removing all the individual, trivial disputes, but I would have preferred another sub-article, to avoid removing sourced material. It's a bit of a mess right now, but I'll try to spend a bit more time hammering away at it. CorporateM (Talk) 19:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

What I might suggest is approaching this one sub-section at a time using strikeouts and bold to indicate proposed additions and trims. Also, keep in mind that every time you propose content, it is a sign of impropriety if negative information is omitted under the hope that we won't notice. Generall speaking funding, acquisitions, CEO changes, and some lawsuits fall under the Corporate History section. Product updates and product history goes into the corresponding product history and most consumer companies have a Marketing or Advertising section to describe how they market themselves. CorporateM (Talk) 19:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks CorporateM for diving in and looking at my draft! I was trying to follow along as you made your edits, but there were a lot so bear with me if I've missed anything. Overall, it looks like you were able to use the majority of my draft, which is great! I saw that you put some of the information into the Uber app software and services section, rather than in History, which isn't what I was expecting but I think I see from your comments what you have in mind there. Regarding the inclusion of individual countries and legal disputes, as I flagged in my initial request, I aimed to summarize this, keeping in mind that the legal issues are covered within the Regulatory opposition section and corresponding separate article so don't need to be included in detail in the History.
Following the updates, though, I'm concerned about the readability of the current article. Key things that would really help make this article much clearer for the average reader:
  • Putting the History into chronological order. Right now it bounces around and creates a confusing timeline of what happened when. Some details are repeated, but with different wording. I'm finding it confusing, and I already know the company's history really well.
  • Keeping a short mention and description of Uber's main services within History, at their introduction in the chronology. That way, when they're mentioned later on as part of the narrative around the company's expansion, readers know what they are. Either that, or entirely move the specifics about the expansion of services into the Uber app software and services section.
  • Efficiently organizing the Uber app software and services section. It's a problem that various services are mentioned in multiple subsections, and the Development history comes after discussion of services that were launched later, Uber Pop and Uber POOL. Bringing together all discussion of the expansion of Uber's services into one single subsection so that there's no repetition or confusion of chronology would make a lot of sense.
Honestly, I'm not sure how to show these changes with strikeouts and bold without it looking like a confusing mess of formatting. If it works for you and others here, I'm going to put the current version into my userspace on a new sub page, then add in an updated version. That way, there'll be a clear diff showing what I'm suggesting to change. I'd also recommend we have Wikidemon take a look, since they've been really involved in this article to date and have a good grasp on the information covered. 4.31.16.86 (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The sections should be in roughly chronological order, but we don't need every sentence individually to be in strict chronology. For example, if we have a paragraph about funding, it may overlap chronologically with other sections/paragraphs, but it should be in roughly the right area. We also definitely don't need a summary of products and services in the History section. That's done in the Lead and in the products section.
Taking it from the top, do you have better sources for the two identified with "better source needed" tags? And is there anything you feel is incorrect/missing from this sub-section? CorporateM (Talk) 23:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Allegedly illegal and unsafe[edit]

The intro currently says "Many governments and taxi companies have protested against Uber, alleging that its use of unlicensed, crowd-sourced drivers was unsafe and illegal." The intro is supposed to be an outline of what is covered in the article. And yet I cannot find a section in the article that goes into more detail about what governments and taxi companies have actually said. I think that is relevant and interesting. Can it be added? Invertzoo (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, now I see that this is covered in the article entitled, "Legal status of Uber's service". It seems rather unfortunate that this is a separate article. Shouldn't the two be merged? Invertzoo (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added a "see also" and a hat note notifying people about the other article. Without either of those assists, it looked almost as if the legality issues were being deliberated hidden in a separate article that readers might not notice. Invertzoo (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

After some deliberation the editors here decided to move it into a separate article because it is a notable subject to itself, and it was overwhelming this article with detail. The focus is not whether Uber is in fact safe or legal, which would risk being a WP:FORK, but rather chronicling different government responses. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

A related question about the article "Legal status of Uber's service"[edit]

To Wikidemon. If that other article "chronicles different government responses" to Uber, then why is that article entitled Legal status of Uber's service, which seems to promise to tell the reader whether Uber's services are legal or not, under which laws and so on. Surely that article should be entitled something more along the lines of Protests and legal actions against Uber or something similar? Invertzoo (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that anyone would call that other article a Wp:Fork, but it did also look rather hidden away, which is why I made the hatnote and the see also. Invertzoo (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It is already listed as the "Main Article" for the Regulatory opposition section. It isn't being "hidden".Scott Illini (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

And I see the section which has that hatnote is now called "Market penetration", which I think is a misleading heading, since the paragraph is about problems with market penetration, not the degree of market penentration. That new heading looks a bit white-washy to me. Invertzoo (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that info was hidden, I said it looked hidden. I came to the article interested in that aspect of the company's history, and found it quite difficult to see where that was discussed. Invertzoo (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article would be improved with a better and more thorough summary of the legal issues, with sources, etc. Might you care to do that?
FWIW, I just added a new subsection the the controversies section, about contractor status vs. employee status, with a source to a US government "guideline". This, at present, is a regulatory response to the controvery, but is not actually a legal issue, at least in the general sense. N2e (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

N2e, are you asking if I want to make a "better and more thorough summary of the legal issues"? As things currently stand, because we have two articles, that would have to go into the other article, or it risks creating a lot of duplication. Also, I am not an expert on law, especially since local, national and international law is involved. Plus some would say the legal objections are better left in chronological order. Invertzoo (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

What does an Uber driver earn?[edit]

I've found a severe shortage of detail on what Uber drivers might earn, in reality, in various markets. If reliable sources can be found in several major markets, it may be possible to improve the article.

- Found this source where a journalist interviewed with 11 drivers and gained access to their pay statements. May be of some use: What Uber Drivers Really Make (According To Their Pay Stubs), Buzzfeed, November 2014. N2e (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

BRD on employee vs. contractor issue[edit]

An editor recently made a Bold edit and removed the section of the article entitled "Contractors, or employees?" I have Reverted that edit, per WP:BRD, so that it might be Discussed here on the Talk page.

It would seem that the issue of Uber drivers being considered by Uber as independent contractors, as currently done, rather than employees, has been much in the news, in many cities, and has become a part of political rhetoric and argument. The material in the article is backed up by reliable sources. So my view would be to leave the "big idea" of the matter as an issue in the article on the Uber company, but of course only leave a fairly high-level summary. Others? N2e (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I reverted the recent addition per BRD. Uber, the sharing economy, and so-called tech, have a lot of detractors and a lot of activists and class action lawyers who want to sue on a variety of grounds. The fact that it's happening doesn't necessarily make it worthy of inclusion in the article. As far as I know, no contractor versus employee suit has been successful or gotten very far, so it just doesn't seem to be significant. It wouldn't be useful in every article about a company to list all of the labor claims and complaints that the company has faced. Also, the focus is a bit off. Most of the content was not specific to Uber. The issue of classification of workers as contractors versus employees runs through the entire economy. Most of the cited material was not about Uber, it was about a Federal initiative that is directed to the entire on-demand workforce, and mentioned Uber in passing as one example of that sector. There has been no reportage that the initiative affected Uber in any way. The right place to treat this would be an article more specifically about that subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, that information about controversy surrounding Uber and the issue of contractors vs. employees is both verifiably sourced, and currently missing from the article. It is notable information about a notable company. So it should be mentioned/summarized in the article, re Uber, even if it is some sort of broader issue that may be covered in more breadth elsewhere in Wikipedia for some broader cross-section of companies or countries. N2e (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)