Talk:Uber/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Expansion into Canada

A new editor is proposing to add a lengthy section[1] as part of a school assignment. I have reverted twice (and will again if no others have) based on it being incompletely sourced and unencyclopedic tone. Addressing the first paragraph out of 10 (a full dissection would be overkill) — 

Uber in Canada has been met with a mixture of responses; ranging from adoration to hatred. Uber in Canada provides a significant contrast to Uber in the United States; where there have been acceptance of the application in certain states, Uber has felt no such welcome by governments in Canada. Currently there are three major actors in the Uber dispute: government officials, taxi drivers and the consumers. Government officials and taxi drivers in most cases air against Uber but with differing approaches. The consumers however; have often demonstrated a want for the ridesharing technology company within many markets.

• 'Uber in Canada has been met with… — passive voice, hides the question of who is meeting Uber with these reactions
• …ranging from adoration to hatred… — unsourced, hyperbole, inapt way to characterize a company's public reception, inherently opinionated commentary even if it could be sourced
• …provides a significant contrast… — author is making unnecessary statement of opinion in Wikiepdia's voice about whether something is significant or contrasts with something else
• …; where there have been acceptance… — grammar, passive voice (ignores who is doing it), possible run-on sentence
• …of the application… — incorrect to reference Uber as an "application"
• …in certain states… — unnecessary imprecision. Which states? What is certain about them?
• …Uber has felt… — passive voice
• …no such welcome… — too flowery, and thus unencyclopedic in tone, to restate "acceptance" as "welcome". Also, unsourced.
• …Currently there are three major actors… — does not state when "currently" is (date of writing? date of reading the article? how would a reader know?). Unsourced statement of opinion / analysis about who the "actors" are and which ones Wikipedia deems to be "major" ones
• …in the Uber dispute… — What dispute? No basis is established for calling anything a dispute
• … Government officials and taxi drivers in most cases… — unsourced judgment about what happens "in most cases". Not clear what "cases" is. Cases of what?
• … air against Uber… — unfamiliar use of "air" as a verb, not clear what it means but it seems to inappropriately characterize a group of people as taking a concerted or identical action
• …with differing approaches… — empty statement, unsourced, seems to be author's judgment in Wikipedia's voice about what is "differing", but stating that something differs from something else without saying what those things are is meaningless
• …The consumers however; have… — ungrammatical, unsourced claim that a group of people are all doing the same thing
• …have often demonstrated… — unencyclopedic tone. Wikipedia is not in a position of declaring that something is duly demonstrated or not. Demonstrated to whom?
• …a want for… — awkward use of "want" verb to mean a consumer demand
• …the ridesharing technology company… — unnecessary and incorrect to redefine Uber as a technology company here. If there is consumer demand it is for the service, not the company
• …within many markets… — empty statement. Which markets? Why does that mean there are many of them? Does it matter that they are many? The introduction of the concept of markets, and implication that they are distinct from one another, seems tangential and unsourced.

The grammar and word choice issues would be easy enough to fix, but the deeper problem of figuring out what it's trying to say, what subset of that is sourceable encyclopedic content, dealing with weight and POV issues, and writing that in Wikipedia's narrative voice, would take a lot of work. It's not clear to me whether there's much viable content to salvage. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, the addition indicates taht Uber has unsuccessfully attempted to enter Calgary. [2] indicates that Uber entered Calgary five days ago. I think it is inaccurate to list Calgary as an unsuccessful attempt. All indications I can find indicate that Uber is as successful there as elsewhere. That is, lots of customers, lots of concern over the laws they are allegedly breaking. --Yamla (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The article now adds Edmonton to the list of places Uber has unsuccessfully tried to enter. This is simply incorrect. They are operating quite successfully (albeit allegedly illegally) in Edmonton. --Yamla (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Text from article page

after making a series of edits to illustrate the problem, and finding more or less zero useful content that is sourced, I am moving this proposed addition here to the talk page for further work to see if there is anything worth including. Please feel free to edit the below by improving the language, adding sources, dealing with tone and opinion issues, etc. Thanks - Wikidemon (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Uber has faced more opposition in Canada than in the United States. Government officials and taxi drivers there have in most cases sided against Uber, whereas many consumers welcome the service.

As of 2015 there are five main cities in Canada with Uber services: Toronto, Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo, London, and Ottawa. Some have claimed that Uber is a taxi service operating illegally without permit, and have run sting operations against drivers. Others, conceding that the service is legal, have put regulations in place to better manage the service.

Waterloo was the first Canadian city to attempt to impose regulations instead of strictly banning the technology company. They are attempting to create a bylaw that will allow for two classes of taxi; one which would be the traditional taxi and the second being a driver with a taxi auxiliary cab license. Drivers would be required to have a GPS and a closed circuit television system installed in their vehicles with a commercial auto insurance policy of a minimum of two million. Waterloo has opened up three forums for public consultations to teach citizens about the new bylaws and hear their opinions. Taxi drivers have used the forums to convey their agreement that the bylaws are a step in the right direction but argue that prosecution still needs to be laid against those who have already in their mind broken the law.

Toronto has followed in the steps of Waterloo; in the sense that there has been strong upheaval from taxi drivers but city council is currently looking into putting in new regulations to standardize the service. New regulations would result in a lowered taxi fare, updated taxi and limousine regulations to include services like Uber, and a new licensing category be created which forces Uber drivers have a background check, to own a permit, and to carry insurance. Despite these ongoing issues; Toronto has made a commitment in polling the public on their opinion. Polls have demonstrated two things: the public use of Uber has been growing and currently has thirty percent more usage than taxis within the city as well as that thirty seven percent of non-Uber users claim that they would use Uber if it was standardized and regulated.

Hamilton has begun to address the same regulatory ideas that Toronto and Waterloo have proposed. Despite Hamilton’s progression; in July of 2015 the taxi companies of Hamilton filed a complaint to the municipality claiming that the city had not done enough to prosecute Uber drivers. Since then the Hamilton municipality has been prosecuting Uber drivers at an exponential rate. By September 2015, eight people are facing a total of twenty-three charges for working as Uber drivers. Fines for each driver could exceed twenty-five thousand. Despite these fines; Uber has pushed for municipal cooperation by agreeing to establishing regulations and agreeing to support the charged drivers by assisting with their fines.

Ottawa has been a large battleground for the two opposing sides. Taxi drivers in Ottawa have been strongly protesting Uber’s arrival; including using tactics that range from peaceful protest, traffic blocking to extremes of assaulting Uber drivers and passengers. The city’s mayor Jim Watson has already made clear that in the eyes of the city of Ottawa; Uber drivers are driving illegally and at their own risk. Although the mayor and taxi drivers seem to agree on the legality of Uber; the mayor has implored taxi drivers to allow for government officials to handle the situation after assault allegations have been made. There is a task force operating a time and resource consuming operation to fine drivers. Although the city has made it clear that it is illegal for the drivers to operate; they have not banned Uber as a technology company and thus Uber has yet to withdraw from Ottawa. The City of Ottawa actually is undertaking public pressure to amend bylaws to allow for Uber to operate; a recent poll suggested eighty four percent of Ottawa residents surveyed support Uber. Further; sixty five percent oppose the City using police and police resources to persecute Uber drivers.

There are three cities in which Uber have unsuccessfully attempted to enter: Calgary, Vancouver and Edmonton.

Uber in Edmonton is facing possible changes with bylaws from the municipality as well. A significant difference however is that Edmonton insists that drivers are the ones responsible for attaining insurance and footing the substantial costs that come with the new regulations. Early approximations estimate that the fees would surmount to approximately seven thousand per year. This is detrimental to Uber as a majority of its drivers work part time and the incurring fees would make working for Uber unbeneficial. Taxi drivers in Edmonton on the other hand argue that the new bylaws are too lenient and that the city should put bylaws in place that would be identical for both Uber and taxi drivers. Uber has claimed that should these new regulations pass; they will be ultimately forced to withdraw from Edmonton.

Uber claims that Vancouver has held the most challenges for its operations. Originally planning on entering the Vancouver market place in the fall of 2014; harsh protests and legal actions from taxi drivers and the city have pushed Uber to withdrawing from Vancouver. The Vancouver Taxi Association, an association that represented Black Top & Checker Cabs, Yellow Cabs, MacLure’s Cabs and Vancouver Taxi originally filed a lawsuit against Uber in November of 2014 but have withdrawn their suit after Uber announced their withdrawal. Calgary has held similar roadblocks for Uber as taxi companies in Calgary banded together to protest Uber. The Associated Cab and Checker Yellow Cabs joined the Canadian Taxicab Companies group in an initiative called Taxi Truths; a group of taxi drivers who pose as Uber riders in attempts to unearth Uber drivers committing illegal practices.

Atlanta class-action lawsuit dismissed?

In September 2014, a class-action was filed by Atlanta, Georgia taxicab drivers and CPNC holders as the plaintiff class, against Uber Technologies, Inc., its subsidiary Raiser LLC (which operates UberX), and in a rare move, all of both companies' drivers as a defendant class in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, for restitution of all metered fares collected via the Uber and UberX apps for trips originating within the Atlanta city limits.

I was trying to follow up on this, and the only new info I could find was that the case was voluntarily dismissed/terminated by the people that filed the suit. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/4829742/McCandliss_et_al_v_Uber_Technologies,_Inc_et_al I don't know if this is an acceptable source, or what format to use for the reference. 69.145.67.34 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Setting up an archive on this page

This talk page is getting to the size where we should probably consider having a bot archiving the old posts. Thoughts?

Daylen (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

To check if Uber can be a Partner with Manila Water Company

Hi I am Joey Cadorna from Fleet Department of Manila Water Company Inc. I would like to meet any of Uber's Top management in the Philippines. My office121.97.75.56 (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC) is at Katipunan Road Balara Quezon City (MWSS Compound)

You are confused, this is the discussion page for the encyclopedia article on Uber (company). --Yamla (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources and citations in Benefits section

The quotations and claims in the Benefits section are not cited, not in the citations, or are not properly attributed in the source cited. None of the direct quotations can be properly sourced and this section needs cleanup. It also needs non- conservative-pro-business sources in its citations.71.145.199.34 (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Surge Pricing NPOV

The section "Surge Pricing", especially the second half, seems to violate Wikipedia's rule about presenting a NPOV. The citations in these paragraphs are hardly neutral. One cited article, two of the three authors are Uber employees. Another citation is an editorial in favor of Uber's surge pricing policy. The section needs to be rewritten and re-cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cburton12 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Expansion in Seoul

I was looking at the section about expansion and I would like to fix a sentence where it talks about operating UberX in Seoul. after reading some references, I found out that Uber is illegal under South Korean law, so it seems occurred that the company launched uberX services in Seoul.Imjaebin83 (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for Company History

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

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)

Pardon the delay here, it's been taking me some time to get my thoughts and responses put together. Meantime, yes, let's work on addressing some of the simpler things. These two references can be used to update the first paragraph and remove the "better source needed" tags:

For the first one: <ref name=Sinan11>{{cite news |title=On heels of new funding and global expansion, car service Uber launches in D.C. today |author=Michael Sinan |url=http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/15/uber/ |work=VentureBeat |date=15 December 2011 |accessdate=5 August 2015}}</ref>

For the second one:<ref>{{cite news |title=UberCab Closes Uber Angel Round |author=Michael Arrington |url=http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/15/ubercab-closes-uber-angel-round/ |work=TechCrunch |date=15 April 2010 |accessdate=22 July 2015}}</ref>

I have question for you and Wikidemon (and any others looking at this) regarding uberPOP and uberPOOL in the Paris section. This is given its own section separate from the mentions of uberPOP and uberPOOL as part of the product development; this seems overly detailed about just this one location, do you think it should stay with the Development history section etc. or could the details somehow be incorporated into the part of the article discussing the legal issues? I wasn't sure how best to make that work, so I'm interested to see what you think. Craig at Uber (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC) 15:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking for someone to help me out with the better source needed note I left last week. CorporateM, Wikidemon, are either of you able to look at the sources I provided? I'd just like to get the tags removed if we can. Also, any opinions on the uberPOP and uberPOOL in Paris section? Thanks again, Craig at Uber (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Should these two "better sources" be added into the article? I'd like to clear this long-outstanding edit request. Thanks,  —SMALLJIM  18:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Craig at Uber:  Done Daniel kenneth (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed expansion area

I've removed the expansion area as it's not encyclopedia content, and instead just a list of when and where the company has expanded. It's pages long, and doesn't add anything to understanding the company. The area reads much nicer without it as well, any thoughts on this move? q (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is better without the full list in this article. Would it possibly justify its own article, or a dramatically scaled-down version left in this article? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Need sources

Section "Threatening journalists" has zero reliable sources: a Buzzfeed article - and Buzzfeed seems to have been involved in the controversy and could be considered a primary source - a blog post (and primary source from the author of the criticism), and a post on an Australian blog. The contents of the section are relevant but very poorly sourced. Can anyone more familiar with the topic provide better sources? Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

General Comments

Hello! I just gave this article a thorough read-through and wanted to offer some comments for improvements.

When reading through this page, I find some bias in a few different statements. If somebody could read my thoughts and see if they concur with them that would be much appreciated.

(1) I find bias in the statement that “…it is now common for taxi drivers to also work for Uber; especially during ‘surge’ periods when they can earn multiple times what they would under the taxi umbrella.” This bias has not been addressed, although a “citation needed” flag has been added. I believe that this is a very pro-Uber statement (I know that the legality of Uber in certain jurisdictions is a hot topic right now, especially when discussing if it is pushing traditional taxi drivers out of the market in an unfair way). Unless a citation can be found which supports this claim, I believe that it should be reviewed as the use of the phrase “common for taxi drivers” is an assumption unless it can be backed by a source.

(2) I would also argue that the “Benefits” section is also biased, but this time against Uber and “gig-economy” jobs. Especially reference #131, which refers to an article that is biased towards “gig-economy” jobs and displays them in a very negative light.

And I have one more comment about the "Uberization" section regarding a slight content gap. I would think that it would be best under the “Uberization” section to use the word “sharing economy” as this is the new economy that Uber has really spearheaded the creation of. Currently, when you click on the word “uberisation” in this section it does link you to the sharing economy page, but I believe that the word “sharing economy” should be directly on the Uber page in addition to "uberisation."

Thank you for reading/responding to my thoughts! Schmids (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely --Verdana♥Bold 08:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdana Bold (talk • contribs)

need to add meta-explanation

I came to the article to find out how uber differs from any other taxi company. That info is not in the article. If it's dispatched via a phone app, that's not a difference, even if only they do it (which I doubt) --Verdana♥Bold 08:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdana Bold (talk • contribs)

Perhaps we should expand the description of the system on the lead - such as the ratings mechanism, surge pricing, and payment methods? Besides this and not being administered/regulated by the city I think all other aspects unique to the platform are already covered in the lead (it uses a software application, drivers own their cars, it proclaims to be a "sharing economy" app). Would the aforementioned expansion be satisfactory? Maybe we should also consider adding that Uber (the company) is investing in self-driving cars (such as the SF initiative) and trucks (Otto). Saturnalia0 (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

UberEATS

The UberEATS page needs some help. Any Uber drivers care to add some content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RileyD0g (talk • contribs) 05:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Dividing Criticism section

As of this writing the Criticism section comprised most of the article (permalink). Some of its contents are not actually criticism, but rather the impact Uber had. For instance the first section, which merely says that taxi medallion prices went down (which is not an inherently good or bad thing, much less criticism). With this in mind I did some copy editing and divided the section into Protests and legal action (was a subsection of Criticism), Impact and Criticism. The first is self-explanatory, actual criticism I placed in the latter, all else went into Impact. No content was removed or added. If anyone has a different idea, please share it here. Feel free to improve the distribution of subsections. Keep in mind there is already an article solely for legal action and protests against Uber, so only the most relevant ones should be kept here (I did not analyze that in the c/e). The History section probably needs a similar re-organization. PS: The Waymo Lawsuit category was moved to the Lawsuits sub-category Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Profit

I search "profit" and "earn" and see nothing. This company, from what I read, isn't profitable. Why no coverage of this in the article? I see "GAAP" in a table about losses, but no prose, and no explanation of what GAAP is. Average readers like me have no clue what GAAP. Please help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

See the infobox for revenue info. I believe GAAP refers to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (United States) Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Saturnalia0. Thank you kindly for the reply. Okay, so maybe a link for GAAP is good. Also, revenue and net income doesn't refer to profit, right? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I didn't add the link because I'm not sure. I said revenue but I meant net income, which is just below revenue in the infobox. Net income is the same as (net) profit as far as I know. I added a phrase mentioning the company is not profitable, such that one can ctrl+f for profit. Please edit it if it's not satisfying. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Saturnalia0. Thanks for the good edit. I looked around and think you must be right about GAAP. I think I will give profitability its own subsection. It is different from financing, and mention of it is currently tagged onto that subsection. It could actually go below "Number of users" because profitability is, after all, the bottom line. Please revert or modify as you see fit. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Insurance

@MillTown2: MillTown2, in good faith, added this to the article: "Although Uber strives to classify its drivers as "independent contractors" rather than "employees," it does accept some fiscal responsibility for the actions of its drivers by providing insurance that covers its drivers, its passengers, and others who are hurt in collisions in which the Uber driver is at fault." The citation is broken for me, but this may be Uber's geolocation. Can someone in the US check the citation? Also, I'm concerned with the wording. Naive readers may assume that the insurance we are talking about is primary auto insurance, but that's not the case, at least not in most jurisdications. The driver still needs their own auto insurance and that insurance must (in most jurisdications) allow commercial operation. Without being able to access this primary source, it's a bit hard for me to suggest a rewording. It's definitely interesting that Uber accepts some fiscal responsibility, I just won't want anyone to be mislead and think they don't need proper coverage through their own insurer. Any thoughts? --Yamla (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

As the citation still doesn't work for me and nobody else has commented, I suggest we simply remove this section. I'll leave this discussion open until end of day on Monday to gather discussion. If someone else can validate the citation and has an idea for rewording, great! We'll do that. Otherwise, I'll remove the section after Monday. --Yamla (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

No objections, so I removed the section. --Yamla (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)