Talk:Sharing economy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sharing economy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 9 June 2013 by reviewer Jjunecobb (talk · contribs).

Internet

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Environment Start‑class

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Uber#Greyball|Greyball]] The anchor (Greyball) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saipreethim07, Xinyi0301.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 October 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michael LSY. Peer reviewers: Michael LSY.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 8 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IRISCYY.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merging into Collaborative consumption

Proposing that this article be merged into Collaborative consumption. IjonTichy (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - 'collaborative consumption' was merge into this article. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@IjonTichyIjonTichy and Jonpatterns: This was undone in 2016 by a user who is now blocked: [1]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should the 'European Sharing Economy Coalition' be mentioned

ref

@Marco.torregrossa, SFK2, and Speedster101:

Should the 'European Sharing Economy Coalition' be mentioned in the article? Its launch seems notable to me. A place should be found even if not in the 'Key organisations promoting the sharing economy' section. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my revisions were based on WP:COI concerns, given that Marco is the managing director at ESEC. -SFK2 (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a subheading "Shared Economy policy initiatives across the globe" under which I discuss briefly the European Sharing Economy Coalition as well as the launch of the Communication document by EC in June 2016. -Luup23 (talk) 08:28, 09 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonpatterns, SFK2, and Luup23: Removed, sources were very poor and the initative is insigificant for this higher level article. Try creating a stand-alone article about it first, if it is noable. If it is not notable, it certainly does not warrant a mention here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original collaborative consumption paper is not about car-sharing. This article claims it is. I propose the sentence be struck from the wikipedia article.

The original article is: [1] M. Felson and J. L. Spaeth. Community structure and collaborative consumption: A routine activity approach. American Behavioral Scientist, 21(4):614–624, 1978.

The dependent variables in that paper were: House Value, Travel, Dishwasher, Number of Cars, Clothes Dryer, Car Worth, Central A/C, Automatic Garage Door Opener, Number of Car Accessories, Party Giving

Current text in wikipedia: The term "collaborative consumption" was coined by Marcus Felson and Joe L. Spaeth in their paper “Community Structure and Collaborative Consumption: A routine activity approach" published in 1978 in the American Behavioral Scientist.[26] The paper dealt with car-sharing. The term was used in more contemporary times by Ray Algar, a UK-based management consultant in an article entitled "Collaborative Consumption" in the Leisure Report Journal in 2007. Donald J. Patterson (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sounds like an imptovement. Go ahead! bobrayner (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational overhaul

I'm of the opinion that this article needs to be reorganized for clarity. A few of the sections seem redundant, and a lot of the terms that have been pooled together under the umbrella of "sharing economy" are ill-defined or only casually mentioned to the point of irrelevance. Thoughts? --FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good points - I would agree that it's a mishmash. (It also seems to be slightly USA-centric). I wish I had more spare time, to help you reorganise it! bobrayner (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobrayner, FacultiesIntact I totally agree, and I am rewriting it now. Well, today I am mostly cutting it down to size and I am still not done. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trim

The article has been been trimmed, much unreferenced material removed and a little that was referenced. Here's the diff for anyone who may be interested. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The person doing the trimming needs to discuss changes instead of issuing empty threats like, "do not readd." This concept is ancient, but the definition is sourced to a blog? Published last year? Really? And besides, the definition is a violation of copyright, which means it can be removed on sight, with no additional discussion. USchick (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that. The article was just so impossibly bad I thought it would just be a given to chop out some of the dead wood. Its still not good and I took out some more. The article looks like it was used as a kind of promo site for several companies that need redirects to their money making efforts. Wikipedia can just be a commercial directory for some business renting house's in London for 3 or 4 hundred a night. So much for the commercial advert aspect for the 'sharing economy. Have to assume this article at one time was put together by several commercial interests that may in fact not be notable, but are sure Googling up now big time thanks to promotion on Wikipedia. So, try to take out some of that stuff and I would hope others help and also help to rewrite this article also for neutral presentation and not glorifying some business scheme, as it is now. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A clear definition would go a long way to outline the scope of this article. According to reliable sources, a sharing economy is used for making money. [2] USchick (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just looked at the article again and now it's much better. Thanks Earl King Jr., I'm glad I didn't revert you in the middle of your effort! USchick (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was pretty comical/shameless promotional before and yes despite the emotional name 'sharing economy' its just a business as usual attempt to make money with iffy allusions to humanitarian regard and environment friendly silliness. That is just my opinion from looking at the business sites that previously co-opted the term and used Wiki. as their platform reference. Ha. I think we can break the article down farther. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New lede

@USchick: New lede may be problematic as it states the sharing economy is both informal and part of an economic system. Is the sharing economy always 'informal', the term isn't used in either ref for the first paragraph:

Jonpatterns (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the lede is problematic. We need a working definition and that was my best stab. Any suggestions? USchick (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a formal economy, the measurement is GDP. A sharing economy by definition has to be part of an economic system. In a transaction, money is sometimes exchanged, but not always. How do we say that? USchick (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to say right now if the term itself is just a neologism for something else. While it is written about in a few places it seems doubtful in application that its anything more than 'business as usual'. It is based on the traditional normal platform of the price system. It may not warrant an article on its own. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse the term seems to have been adopted by certain businesses and politicians.

We are not the only ones struggling with definition, what Juliet Schor has written on the issue may be useful:

Coming up with a solid definition of the sharing economy that reflects common usage is nearly impossible. There is great diversity among activities as well as baffling boundaries drawn by participants. ...

Sharing economy activities fall into four broad categories: recirculation of goods, increased utilization of durable assets, exchange of services, and sharing of productive assets. ... article here

Jonpatterns (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty good. It starts strong though and kind of spirals into almost meaningless jargon. It does appear that mostly the article had been used as a tool to promote some business interests in the dollar making business previously. I do like the front part of that definition. It seems we are stuck with some rambling ideas from quasi academics who though obscure have written about this term. This article might make a good redirect into something else. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from uberisation

It has been suggested 'uberisation' be merged into 'sharing economy' (this article).

oppose - There will be enough material for a separate article, it is a notable term. However, I think we need to be very careful what is claimed to be related 'uberisation'. Which describes a business model that has disrupted various markets. Sharing economy is a more broad term.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - Uberisation bears little resemblance to previous forms of sharing economies. It needs an article of its own.Hendrick 99 (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oppose - Sharing economy is a more broad term so not fitting. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge I strongly support this merge, and will continue to do so so long as no one can actually explain the difference. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just an example - the entirety of the Controversy and Criticism section in this article is about Uber's business model. There is no criticism or controversy whatsoever about any other claimed kind of sharing. I will continue to push a merge until there is a clear idea of which article is discussing what. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - If you think the section should be improved and expanded, please help do so, rather than attempting to conflate the concept of uberisation with the general concept of sharing economies.180.255.240.14 (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the articles is not great. When considering merge it should be based firstly on whether terms are synonyms, secondly if they are not does each term need its own article.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

180, the fundamental problem I have is that mass media routinely using sharing economy to describe Uber's business model. You might think they're different, but unfortunately many media sources don't see any difference. So, if Wikipedia is gonna say it's different, it needs to say how it's different. I can't do that, because I have no idea how they are different. Large portions of this article are 100% about Uber's business model without addressing any other alleged form of sharing economy, so I can't figure out the claimed difference. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oiyarbepsy, The article doesn't focus on uber's business model. It discusses general characteristics of uberisation, which are not the same as the characteristics of a sharing economy as explained on the article on wikipedia. As a matter of fact, several of the examples of uberised businesses discussed in the article are most certainly not sharing economies. Uberisation refers to the use of handphone applications to increase consumer accessibility to resources without going through a physical middle man. Netflix, for example, is most certainly an uberised business, however it is not a sharing economy. If you can clearly explain why all instances of uberisation are examples of sharing economies, please do so, but it seems like you're expanding the definition of the latter a bit too much.Hendrick 99 (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If mass media uses a term incorrectly/loosely wikipedia is not bound to do so, as long as we have reliable sources for the definition used.

There is at least one difference, the origins of the term, not that that would necessarily justify a separate articles.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge: Marketplaces with peer to peer properties have existed for centuries.
Uberisation is a buzzword used to describe that. It is sufficiently used to justify its entry in Wiktionary, but it's not separable enough to have its own Wikipedia. I strongly support a merge. Amin (Talk) 09:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge Could easily fit somewhere in section "Types of collaborative consumption"; is covered by the article's scope. Sro23 (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely find it warranted to have two articles Uber points to a form of sharing economics of the second tier, the first tier of said phenomenon is pooling, the second is in some form or other creating your own currency - Uber has in fact its own currency, as much as do pools, their currencies howerver lack some details still for them to qualify as currency - Tobacco once was currency, hockey/base-ball cards are currency, hot buns is a currency, but hot buns (so far) has not been monopolised... (Kallekul) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.242.210 (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Netflix an example of uberisation?

Using definition from uberisation article to see if Netflix is an example:

The use of a digitalised platform enabling peer to peer, or quasi-peer to peer transactions

There is no peer-to-peer transaction, customers pay Netflix.

Minimising the distance between the provider and customer of a service

Netflix streams from central servers, or delivers via a postal service.

The use of a rating system for the quality of the service provided by a provider.

There is only one service provider - Netflix.

So the question remains, in what way can Netflix be described as an example of uberisation. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems its not connected. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Checchi's comment on this article

Dr. Checchi has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

language quality is heterogeneous. It is not framed in a general scheme. typos in the second paragraph. no information on the size of the phenomenon.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Checchi has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference : Bertola, Giuseppe & Checchi, Daniele, 2013. "Who Chooses Which Private Education? Theory and International Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 7444, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Circumventing labor protection laws

Is the second paragraph in the section "Circumventing labor protection laws", which talks about lack of interpersonal relationships in sharing economy relevant to the section? Saipreethim07 (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grocery and Food delivery

Would it be a good idea to add about food and grocery delivery as an extension of Transport sharing economy? For example, UberEATS and Instacart have drivers that get paid to deliver food to customers.

Saipreethim07 (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit against Instakart

In 2015, Instakart had to face a class action suit for classiying its shoppers as independent contractors. Will it be good idea to include this in the Circumventing labor protection law(s) section? Tan_umn (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Circumventing labor protection law(s)

I am making a new subsection for the lines discussing about sharing economies not emphasizing interpersonal relationships, and companies not sharing reputation data.

Tan umn (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Types of collaborative consumption

How is "Trust" a part of this section? Trust section adds little value to this section and is better suited to be put elsewhere.

Tan umn (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shareconomy listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shareconomy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming down

This article contains a lot of bloat, and is a mess with no clear oversight, some sections overlap, some are about clearly different topics. The educational assignments few years back did little, if anything, to help. Solution is simple: cut this down to size. I did it few years ago at globalization, and I'll do tis again here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article could use a heavy edit and reorganization.Dialectric (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam?

User:MrOllie, can you explain [3] in more detail? Is the source unreliable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, In my opinion it is WP:UNDUE weight on Ertz, coming from a editor who has done nothing but insert citations to Ertz over a span of 4 years. If you disagree, feel free to revert me or use the citations in some other way - I'll be happy as long as that comes from an unconnected editor. MrOllie (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, while the citation doesn't strike me that bad, I agree that the editing pattern of User:Wikipodium2 is pretty lackluster. Let's see if they decide to comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Benefits" and "Criticism" sections should be turned into an "Impact" section

These pros and cons structures are not conducive to well-structured, cohesive and neutral articles. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]