Talk:Uber/Archive 3

What is it?

I heard that Uber was big, so I looked it up to see what it is. I had to read a fair bit to read between the lines that probably it is a taxi service that does not have a regular team of drivers, but anyone can offer their services. So a bit like 3D Hubs, but for taxis? Ah, I now refer to '3D Hubs' as if everyone already knows what that is. Maybe that is the problem here, that so far the editors have assumed that readers already know what Uber is. Well I didn't, and came here precisely to fing that out. So could someone please write a 'Uber for dummies' intro? :) DirkvdM (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @DirkvdM: You might want to check the Uber article on the Simple English Wikipedia or Real-time ridesharing for more information on the topic. Have a nice day! Daylen (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, but my main point was that the article isn't clear about this. In other words, don't just put that info here, but put it in the intro of the article.DirkvdM (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The introduction already cited Uber as a ridesharing, ride service hailing, food delivery, and a bicycle-sharing system. These descriptions were appropriately linked to their respective Wikipedia entries for the readers' reference. There is a challenge in simplifying them according to your terms because these are new phenomena and there is no way to briefly explain them to someone who has never heard of these terms before. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

180 Days Of Change

I have added the 180 Days Of Change to the Uber (company) page in order to show how Uber is making changes to make the experience better for driver-partners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdeno (talk • contribs) 23:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Security

I just got an email from Norton (whose antivirus I used to use) telling me that Uber has announced a security breach. I expect it is true, and might be worth mentioning in this article. Andrewa (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the article. See "User privacy and data breaches". --Yamla (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

So it is! Uber (company)#User privacy and data breaches covers it. The TOC is so long I missed it completely, and several searches using our own search facility turned up nothing. And the section itself is overly long IMO. Some refactoring for better navigation, perhaps even splitting out some more detailed articles and/or creating some redirects to sections and/or anchors, might be good. Andrewa (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeap. It's a big problem with the article and I'm not surprised in the least that you couldn't find it initially. I'm being quite serious, here. A bunch of information was split out into a separate article, Uber protests and legal actions. The data breach you are talking about, does it belong in this article or in the other one? It's not clear to me. Maybe it belongs here until the civil or criminal action starts, and then it should be moved? And wherever it goes, it's going to get lost. There's simply too much content of this sort of nature, with regard to Uber. It's a real problem. --Yamla (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Account

My Account has been hacked and I want to close my account. I could not sign in dto do that. could I please have a contact phone number so I can close my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.16.204 (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You are confused. This is Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. We have nothing to do with Uber. You'll need to contact them directly. --Yamla (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Self-driving Uber kills Arizona woman in first fatal crash involving pedestrian

I do not have permission to include this: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/19/uber-self-driving-car-kills-woman-arizona-tempe Could anyone include it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.143.164.15 (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Chetsford (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reason this information needs to be in the article twice? 75.182.115.183 (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

not neutral at all

I see this article is very biased against the company Abote2 (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

In what way? Seems to me, it's disproportionately favourable to the company. --Yamla (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The Criticism section is very long I also do see alot of favourable content as well but very little neutral content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abote2 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's a direct result of their actions. The criticism section is deliberately much, much shorter than it would otherwise be, as much of the information was broken out into Uber protests and legal actions. --Yamla (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I am new to reading this page and I am shocked at how one-sided it appears. Just look at the lead. So much to discuss yet 1/2 is about negative. --169.0.4.61 (talk) 07:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2018

I want the following added under Additionally in Operations section:

UberMOTO, available in Pakistan, provides transportation by motorcycle. 39.57.201.88 (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Done, thank you. Gulumeemee (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2018

Add UberPEDAL to the list of services, whereby users can request a car with a bike rack to transport their bike. 2605:6000:1522:400B:F924:E124:2C19:5704 (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uber (company). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150718035916/http://sfist.com/2015/07/15/uber_reaches_wrongful_death_settlem.php to http://sfist.com/2015/07/15/uber_reaches_wrongful_death_settlem.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Protests and legal actions

Do we need this section here? It is redundant with the article Uber protests and legal actions. Are we going to list the regulatory actions of every city as it relates to TNCs? Some of the protests and legal actions are also not specific to Uber; they apply to all TNCs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.251.68.93 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The caption of the first image on the right in this section "Uber drivers on strike at Montparnasse, Paris, February 3, 2016" doesn't correspond to any incident mentioned in the article, or on the separate Uber protests article. It also seems unlikely, so where has this come from? RobsterUK (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

See WP:SUMMARY. Rupert Loup (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Ownership

Can we get a section? Is this helpful? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per request. The consensus is Uber is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

---

• Uber (company) → Uber
• Uber → Uber (disambiguation)

– Unlike Apple, Amazon, and Tinder, there is no topic of longstanding historical importance to compete for the primary topic claim against the company, which receives about ten times as many page views as all other reasonably matching topics combined - even those with the umlaut. bd2412 T 21:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. A clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - Station1 (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• If moving the dab it should be to Über (disambiguation) with umlaut. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious, why do you think so? Uber-the-company doesn't use the umlaut and I imagine most English speakers would type in 'Uber' instead of 'Über', no matter what they were searching for. To be clear, I'm not saying I think you are wrong, you may very well be correct; I'm asking why you think we should use the umlaut for the dab. --Yamla (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree the dab page should preferably be at Über (disambiguation). The only other articles using the title "Uber" are Über, Über (album), and Über (comics), all of which use the umlaut. But the proposed name is also okay. Station1 (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed Red Slash 04:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The word "uber" has been around a lot longer than the company and clearly has other meanings as the disambig page shows. I'm not convinced that the company is the primary topic here. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Uber without the umlaut definitely primarily refers to the driving company. Über and Uber are distinctly different and can be treated as different per SMALLDETAILS. Uber, the company, receives many more page views then other pages of the same name. CookieMonster755✉ 20:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – Wikipedia is not a dictionary is relevant to this discussion. CookieMonster755✉ 16:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Rreagan007. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support, primary topic by a gigantic margin, nothing else on that dab page is in the same realm of notability. The word is already at Über and would be unaffected by this move. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Uber-support. Okay, seriously? Words in English are usually subordinate to real-life things. See Nice Red Slash 04:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC) (edit: also, move the dab page to the title with umlauts Red Slash 04:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC))

• Support per nom. Über has its own page. —  AjaxSmack  01:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support the German word Über is the only other thing that could possibly be a primary topic, and it both has an umlaut and is a dictdef. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yet another attempt to force a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC where there isn't one, where a move is guaranteed to result in the accumulation of uncheckable bad links. Narky Blert (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • How many links do you seriously expect to be made to Uber that are not intended for the company? bd2412 T 01:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    • One is too many. Narky Blert (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Weak support. I was reluctant to support but Uber (company) significantly has higher views than all the other Uber pages combined. — Zawl 16:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Never understood why this page had (company) next to it. Uber is a well-known enough company to not need this. Über has its own page so I don't see any conflict. ThaiTee (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Daylen (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

2017 profit or loss update

Could someone please update the section? Thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Split the article (at least the "Legal status by country" section)

The "Legal status by country" section takes up almost half the article. It currently links to the "Uber protests and legal actions" article, but it's not really about the same topic. I suggest moving the "Legal status by country" section to its own (new) article, and leaving only a summary here about the legal status around the world, with an anchor to the main article. Would anyone oppose such a move? Saturnalia0 (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Addition to Uber Services Section

I'm an Uber driver in the Washington DC Metro area. For the last three weeks or so, Uber has added an additional service level that is cheaper than "Uber POOL" named "Uber Express POOL". This service has the same restrictions as "Uber POOL" with the additional conditions that the rider MAY (depending on the rider's location and destination) have to walk to a designated pick-up location and/or be dropped off prior to the desired destination and have to walk the rest of the way. The rider app will direct the rider to the pick up location and (presumably) notifies the rider if they will have to walk after being dropped off. So far I have not noticed a pick-up or drop off point that was more than a couple of blocks from the intended pick-up or destination point.

So the requested change to the entry would be: 1. Under Operations|Levels of Service|Uber POOL, remove "is the lowest cost level of service, " 2. Add a new line under Operations|Levels of Service|Uber POOL beginning with Uber Express POOL and containing pertinent information from above.

I'm not sure this is sufficiently notable. We don't normally note every single tier a service company offers, just like we don't list every single product a company sells. Feel free to convince me otherwise. --Yamla (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2018

The following sentence is gramatically incorrect: "On 18 November 2016, the eastern high court of Denmark ruled that Uber is an illegal."

It should be corrected to one of the following (or similar): "...ruled that Uber is an illegal taxi service." "...ruled that Uber is illegal." Mortenbogh (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Discuss 06:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Uber protests and legal actions for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Uber protests and legal actions is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uber protests and legal actions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

A while back a separate article was created for Uber protests and legal actions, but after three years this article remains a duplicate of the section of the main article on legal status (Uber#Legal_status_by_country). There was consensus to summarise the section on legal issues in this article, but this has not happened. Therefore, I'm proposing deleting the Uber protests and legal actions page and retaining the content in the main article for Uber. I'd be equally happy to keep the page and delete the duplicate text from the main article. jamacfarlane (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Merging Uber#Uber protests and legal actions section to Uber protests and legal actions

Hello all. I feel like the Uber#Uber_protests_and_legal_actions section of the article is pretty redundant, as article Uber protests and legal actions have already listed a majority of information. I suggest leaving a small intro, and moving all country/region sections to the other article. But before I perform any edits, I want some community's input. How do you all think? Cheers. –Wefk423 (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done. It has already been suggested by two editors in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uber protests and legal actions. Left a condensed summary and main article link to Uber protests and legal actions under Uber#Criticism. –Wefk423 (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead is not balanced

1/2 of this lead, as opposed to summarize the article, seems to focus on the negative. Per WP:LEAD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.4.61 (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Slot

I driving Uber 2 years and 2 months. They not allowed me to. Buy car to put my own profile I don't know why this takeing long Qalimownuur (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

You are confused. This is a place to discuss how to improve the article, Uber. We don't work for Uber and can't help you with this issue. Please see WP:NOT. --Yamla (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Economics

Criticism is long enough it can be moved to a separate article. More on the business and economics of Uber. What is the arranged percentage that Uber takes away from rides and is it economical? -Inowen (nlfte) 22:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Between 20-30%, dependant on geographic location. Jasperwillem (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Uber is not peer-to-peer, so the term "peer-to-peer" in the intro is misleading and should be dropped

At the core of the definition of peer-to-peer systems is that there is no central stakeholder with power over the platform, but instead peers directly coordinate and share resources. For instance, on the wiki page "Peer-to-peer" it says: "Peers are equally privileged, equipotent participants in the application."

This is in complete contrast to how Uber operates: there is one stakeholder - namely Uber - who has almost full command over the platform. It is thus - by orders of magnitude - more privileged and potent than any single rider or driver (or even groups up to a certain size): Uber sets the prices, Uber, if they want, can without problem throw any single rider or driver out of the system, etc. Uber is a classical example of the "gig economy" .

Therefore I propose to remove the term "peer-to-peer" from the introduction. Instead it should simply be described as a ridesharing company which provides ride hailing services etc. (as already mentioned in the current intro) - don't you agree? Chilliff (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support, for the reasons given. --Yamla (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support (Summoned by bot) if the statement in the RfC is correct. I would like to point out that it is not neutral as required by RfC rules. Coretheapple (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The statement in the RFC is misleading by referencing the computer or network architecture peer-to-peer article instead of the far more appropriate peer-to-peer ridesharing article which aligns with its use in here. 203.10.55.11 (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I don't think the article peer-to-peer ridesharing gives support for calling Uber peer-to-peer. The content of the article comprises several concepts: (1) One is Transportation network company. This in fact applies to Uber, I guess, but such a transportation network company is nowhere referred as "peer-to-peer", neither in the article peer-to-peer ridesharing, nor in the article Transportation network company (and rightly so, as argued above). (2) The peer-to-peer ridesharing article also comprises the notion of "... informal nonprofit peer-to-peer carpooling arrangements ...". Here the term "peer-to-peer" does occur, but clearly this latter notion is not applicable to Uber, because Uber is for-profit. (Generally I think the article peer-to-peer ridesharing, already starting with the title, blurs definitions and differences between concepts - which has to be discussed there of course.) (Edited) Chilliff (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the RfC should be formulated differently, Coretheapple. I'm rather new to Wikipedia editing. I removed the RfC tag for now. Chilliff (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I believe that peer to peer in the case of Uber pertains to the application and not the way the Uber company is run. Peer to peer here refers to the way the platform allows both the consumer and the driver to access value from the Uber network and conduct exchange. The more drivers there were in a city, the higher the likelihood the consumers get the type of ride they want. More users logged on to Uber means more passengers for the driver. Users are also able to leave ratings. These are some reasons why Uber services vary from city to city. Furthermore, in the peer-to-peer Wikipedia entry, there is a section called Content Delivery. I am not certain because the section is brief, but I think it also describes the Uber platform if we are to consider service in place of content. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support (Summoned by bot) Agree with proposer, not a peer to peer. Darx9url (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• NO (invited by a bot) This RFC is poorly structured and unlikely to result in consensus. I recommend the OP review the guidance on WP:RFC and start over. The title as well as the entire introduction would be best reserved for a Comment/Discussion section. We mainly need a simple question like "Should Uber be described as a peer-to-peer system?" followed by a Survey section where we can state our !votes and policy reasoning.

The OP appears to have a bias against Uber's control of the application which mediates the peer-to-peer relationship of driver and rider. There's nothing wrong with that POV but we need to keep it out of our editorial work.

Finally, the definition of peer-to-peer used in the OP's introduction here is from peer-to-peer networks. For a transactional commercial service like Uber, it might be better to look at other uses of the phrase (see Peer-to-peer (disambiguation)). As Darwin suggests above, peer-to-peer, driver-rider relationships are an important part of the Uber service. Jojalozzo (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the RfC should be formulated differently. I'm rather new to Wikipedia editing. I removed the RfC tag for now. Upon your suggestion, I looked through Peer-to-peer (disambiguation) but didn't find any other article which would justify the use of "peer-to-peer" for Uber. Also I do think that the article peer-to-peer is central to our discussion here because it discusses the general meaning of that term. Also let me add that I feel "peer-to-peer" is a good example where the word already indicates a lot about the meaning -- peers interact directly with one another, without a "middle man". (Btw., please see also my comment on the article peer-to-peer ridesharing above, which is not listed in the Peer-to-peer (disambiguation).)

• Comment The phrasing of this RfC needs work. It seems to me that Uber offers a peer-to-peer platform which it controls, so it is not operated peer-to-peer, but does have that aspect in its business model. The current statement is accurate: "ridesharing company offering services that include peer-to-peer ridesharing. However, that statement in the lede does not reflect content in the body. One would expect further details under Business Model, but there are none. (I have further commentary on that section, below.) AHampton (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly, this RFC is neither neutral nor brief as required by the RFC process. Secondly, the request makes an argument against the term "peer-to-peer" referencing the computer or network architecture peer-to-peer article instead of the far more appropriate peer-to-peer ridesharing article which aligns with its use here. 203.10.55.11 (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. As mentioned above, I don't think the article peer-to-peer ridesharing gives support for calling Uber peer-to-peer. The content of the article comprises several concepts: (1) One is Transportation network company. This in fact applies to Uber, I guess, but such a transportation network company is nowhere referred as "peer-to-peer", neither in the article peer-to-peer ridesharing, nor in the article Transportation network company (and rightly so, as argued above). (2) The peer-to-peer ridesharing article also comprises the notion of "... informal nonprofit peer-to-peer carpooling arrangements ...". Here the term "peer-to-peer" does occur, but clearly this latter notion is not applicable to Uber, because Uber is for-profit. (Generally I think the article peer-to-peer ridesharing, already starting with the title, blurs definitions and differences between concepts - which has to be discussed there of course.) (Edited) Chilliff (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the peer-to-peer ridesharing article is needs work, but it is more appropriate as a starting point for internal consistancy within Wikipedia and in it's current state covers for-profit platforms like Uber. In the case of for-profit ridesharing in general, and Uber in specific, the determining factor needs to be whether or not reliable sources use the term peer-to-peer when referring to them, and not if we as editors think the term peer-to-peer logically applies which would be a form of original research. I'm not familiar enough with relevant sources to have a strong opinion on this, but anecdotally I have heard the term peer-to-peer used in reference to both Uber and for-profit ride-sharing frequently enough that I would be surprised if many reliable sources did not support its use in both cases, e.g. [1][2][3][4] as some I found quickly. 203.10.55.11 (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I think we need to differentiate between peer-to-peer (networks) and Peer-to-peer ridesharing before any productive discussion takes place. Spy-cicle (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. As mentioned above, I don't think the article peer-to-peer ridesharing gives support for calling Uber peer-to-peer. The content of the article comprises several concepts: (1) One is Transportation network company. This in fact applies to Uber, I guess, but such a transportation network company is nowhere referred as "peer-to-peer", neither in the article peer-to-peer ridesharing, nor in the article Transportation network company (and rightly so, as argued above). (2) The peer-to-peer ridesharing article also comprises the notion of "... informal nonprofit peer-to-peer carpooling arrangements ...". Here the term "peer-to-peer" does occur, but clearly this latter notion is not applicable to Uber, because Uber is for-profit. (Generally I think the article peer-to-peer ridesharing, already starting with the title, blurs definitions and differences between concepts - which has to be discussed there of course.) (Edited) Chilliff (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support (Summoned by bot) - Since Uber uses and is the centralized platform it shouldn't be described as "peer-to-peer". Meatsgains^(talk) 23:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support (Summoned by bot) Term is usually used to refer to software, not corporate models, but agree with proposer, definitely NOT P2P. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Criticism section

It seems excessive to have so much criticism reported in this general article. In the TOC the criticism section occupies over half the space by itself! I propose to split this section into a new page and leave a summary here. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

We already tried that and it didn't really work. See earlier discussions from September, 2018. I oppose this proposition, but not strongly. If others think it a good idea to try this again, great. My opinion is that moving all the criticism into a separate article unfairly biases this article positively. --Yamla (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need to disrupt article flow to avoid bias. We can still report a summary of all the criticism in this article. By the way, we can start addressing bias by reporting major criticism also in the lead. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That was tried and failed. I don't think it'll work this time. But again, my position is weakly held. If others think it'll work, I certainly don't want to hold back the consensus. --Yamla (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Chilliff (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I support Yaml's argument that "moving all the criticism into a separate article unfairly biases this article positively". I also see Ita's point that "the TOC the criticism section occupies over half the space by itself". Maybe a solution would be to reduce the number of subsection in the criticism section? Chilliff (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I would certainly support Ita140188 here since currently the critism section here has 20 sub headings and covers most of the page. The main 4-6 points should be covered here and the rest be placed in an individual article like Criticism of Uber  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for lead

I propose to add this sentence to the lead to summarize the criticism section. It is a huge section in this article and needs at least a reference in the lead:

As for other transportation network companies, Uber has been criticized for disrupting the taxicab business, increasing traffic congestion, and for unfair treatment of drivers. The company has also been criticized for its aggressive strategy in dealing with regulators and for other unlawful practices.

Of course this is a proposal, please let me know what you think. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Overall I support your suggestion. Actually I think the most publicly relevant criticism of Uber is unfair treatment of drivers, because this in fact heavily affects millions of drivers (of course this applies in a similar way to Lyft and other companies). So what about putting it before the other criticisms? Chilliff (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that treatment of drivers should go first. New version:

As for other transportation network companies, Uber has been criticized for unfair treatment of drivers, for disrupting the taxicab business, and for increasing traffic congestion. The company has also been criticized for its aggressive strategy in dealing with regulators and for other unlawful practices.

--Ita140188 (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this summary. It leaves a lot out. A lot of the criticism of Uber revolves around their disregard of safety and their targeting of rape victims. But, look, no summary is going to capture all the criticism of a company like Uber, so this is probably a reasonable start. Anyone who wants to know more will have to read the details. Therefore, I endorse this summary or a slight variant of it. --Yamla (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Business Model or company brochure?

I was bowled over by the advertising section that is Uber#Business Model#Service options#Offered. (There are even more sub-sections with no content in this section, ie: Stakeholders). I propose a copy-edit to reduce WP:PROMO and superfluous sub-sections. AHampton (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I would certainly agree with you here. There is such a long list list of similiar services in different regions. This section needs to be cut down heavily.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Dubious claim

This edit changed:

CTO Thuan Pham reportedly had knowledge of Susan Fowler's sexual harassment allegation at Uber and her manager's threatened retaliation, and did nothing (These allegation were later shown to be false by an investigative reporting by TheInformation, and by a Buzzfeed publication of an email from Pham to this engineering team to clarify the matter.);

to:

CTO Thuan Pham was alleged to have had knowledge of and to ignore Susan Fowler's sexual harassment allegations; however, investigations by TheInformation and Buzzfeed showed this to not be the case, allowing Pham to keep his job.

which does not appear to be supported by the sources (though one is paywalled). Fowler has commented on Twitter (thread), saying:

There was no "investigation" by Buzzfeed. This Buzzfeed article links to the article in The Information which, according to the article's editor, was in error and was eventually corrected

Can someone more familiar with the background review the sources and clean this up, please?

References

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Is "prior to" better than "before"?

@User:Yamla Maybe it sounds more smart... If so, then "previously to" would be even better. Besides, was my edit so stupid that your revert did not need any explanation? And on top of that, you are an administrator here. 85.193.247.94 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Your change was entirely trivial. It looked to be just an attempt to rack up an edit count, though admittedly this doesn't help anonymous users. At the very least, you should have marked your edit as minor but honestly, I'm not sure why you'd bother with an edit like that. --Yamla (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Yamla wrote:

• Your change was entirely trivial.

So what? Most edits made in Wikipedia are very trivial, e.g. corrections of typos. Does it mean they are unnecessary? Besides, your revert was equally trivial. I replaced "prior to" with "before". You replaced "before" with "prior to". What's the difference. To solve that problem and examine your reasoning I made this edit. What will you do?

• It looked to be just an attempt to rack up an edit count,

Obvious nonsense.

• though admittedly this doesn't help anonymous users.

As you can see, your assumption was not very brilliant.

• At the very least, you should have marked your edit as minor

As an IP - user I don't see an appropriate button to do so. But would it have stopped you from reverting? I don't think so.

• but honestly, I'm not sure why you'd bother with an edit like that.

I might well ask you: "Why did you bother with a revert like that?". For me editing Wikipedia is basically a waste of time. So I do it only sporadically, mostly to improve my English (a second language). I get validation from something much more ambitious. 85.193.247.94 (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The article requires pending changes be reviewed. You can read about this at WP:PC. As such, your change doesn't automatically get added when you make it. It only gets added if accepted. I saw no reason to accept your change. I'm certainly not the only one who gets to approve pending changes to the article, far from it. You are welcome to make your change suggestion again and I promise not to review it. Alternatively, if you can build a consensus here that your change is an improvement, it'll get added (by you or someone else) regardless of my opinion that it's not an improvement. After all, that's how WP:CONSENSUS works. --Yamla (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. 85.193.247.94 (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

2019 Financials are not correct

The 2019 financial numbers in the sidebar are incorrect and misleading. I edited the article directly but the change was rejected. https://investor.uber.com/news-events/news/press-release-details/2020/Uber-Announces-Results-for-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2019/default.aspx is quite clear, if you search the page for "8,506" and "8,596" they are both negative and lower than the year ending 2018 numbers. This makes sense, it is hard to make 16 billion from interest to get from negative EBIT to positive net income.

Could someone please fix that?

110.174.30.127 (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Done - pulled it directly from the 10K filed 3/2. Yes, that would have been an exceptional portfolio. Kuru (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Uber pricing

I added a new sub-section titled ===Pricing options=== under ==Product overview== to identify differences in Uber's pricing models with price fixing implications between individual drivers, as well as between Uber and individual drivers. These edits were reverted @Wikiwriter700: due violation of WP:UNDUE Does anyone have specific recommendations to improve this content? Proposals to balance it?

Product overview

Uber does not provide transportation services, instead, Uber determines and dictates the terms on which independent drivers are allocated to customers and the prices that will be charged to them, including the share earned by the driver. To facilitate the scheme, Uber utilizes dynamic pricing model; prices vary according to supply and demand at the time of service.

....

Pricing options

Uber’s pricing technology

According to Uber, “in the United States, upfront prices are based on the estimated length and duration of the trip. Estimates can vary based on demand patterns and real-world factors like traffic.” Uber holds absolute control over the pricing of all trips, as well as the distribution mechanism of the supply side.

Multiples of Uber’s base rates

In January of 2020, Uber has released new test feature in select California service areas to enable drivers at the Santa Barbara, Sacramento and Palm Springs airports to set a fair based on a multiple of Uber’s base, time and distance rates for UberX and UberXL trips.

Price fixing implications

As part of the measure to enable drivers set multiples of the Uber’s base rates, Uber states in its directives to drivers that "it is illegal under state and federal law for anyone, including rideshare drivers, to engage in price fixing. This includes agreeing or coordinating with other drivers (in airport staging lots or elsewhere) on pricing and surge pricing. The law requires that drivers must make decisions about pricing and surge pricing on their own."

The purpose of price fixing is to coordinate pricing for mutual benefit. To establish a criminal violation as a result of price fixing subject to Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1), the government or a private party must prove three essential elements: (1) The conspiracy was knowingly formed (2) The defendant knowingly joined the conspiracy (3) The conspiracy either substantially affected interstate or foreign commerce or occurred within the flow of interstate or foreign commerce. Price fixing is an antitrust offense that is considered “per se” unreasonable restraints of trade. The courts have reasoned that price fixing has no legitimate justification and lack any redeeming competitive purpose and should, therefore, be considered unlawful without any further analysis of their reasonableness, economic justification, or other factors.

Litesand (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

References

"pioneer in the development of self-driving cars"

Do we have a source for this claim ? It's seems to me like it's not acceptable unless it is verified and backed by a secondary source. Best, J. --2A02:AA13:6142:EE80:3558:D66A:C393:BF1 (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

How is this a B class article?!

There are many flaws in the article, and it does not deserve B-class. First off, its 'History' section just lists events and dates, with no transition. Then there is an undue weight problem, with most of the article dedicated to Uber's controversies, and not much on its successes. Is there a reason behind B-class? Sungodtemple (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Pricing and financial info

The statement that Uber collects 25% for its fee is plan wrong. Two years ago it switched to a price it pays drivers per mile and per minute which can change due to time of day and demand or a combination of the above. So drivers receiving 75% of the fare isn’t true especially since every local town gets some of the fare based on a number of factors. Uber’s portion of the fare these days tends to be higher than 25% and as high as 50% on some rides. There is no way to accurately estimate how much Uber collects on each ride. 2601:249:B01:82F0:68D8:45B2:8081:E0A2 (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

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) 04:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

What on earth is an Uber

I live in the DR Congo. There's no Uber here. I chose to read about it on Wikipedia but am none the wiser. The article seems to be written for people who already know what it is. 1. It's a taxi? Yes or No? 2. I hear it's more expensive than a taxi. So what's the point? 3. Are the drivers just driving their own cars, or do they have a taxi licence? 4. Aren't these drivers just moonlighting? 5. Are they insured? 6. How is it different to a taxi apart from adding 25% to Uber shareholders and executives. Perhaps someone can write a Wikipedia article to explain these things. 41.243.14.203 (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

That was me. Francis Hannaway (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Francish7: Excellent points. This article really fails miserably in describing the company's main product and in explaining what made it innovative (i.e. different from a taxi service) and controversial. The intro has a link to the generic article ridesharing company, but that's not a sufficient substitute. Lk525 recently tried to add some explanations, unfortunately without citing sources.

I guess one could start by creating a new section titled "Ride-hailing operations", summarized in the intro per WP:LEDE.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you HaeB, I've been outside the developed world for 7 years. I keep reading about Uber taxis and Uber eats etc, but this article just assumes you know what it is. When I've looked up hotels, or travel arrangements, they often include taxi fares and will say: taxi $4.50, Uber: $59. So, I wondered what the difference was. Wiki didn't explain anything. 🤣 Francis Hannaway (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Different Types of Ubers offered

Uber has evolved since it was first created. Different types of Ubers are now offered including UberXL, Uber Comfort, and Uber Black. All are still Ubers, but offer different experiences and luxuries from the standard Uber ride. Perhaps creating a section before "Criticism" and explaining the different services that Uber offers. MarshWicker (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Disagreeing with move of criticisms to Ridesharing company

Hi all,

ProcrastinatingReader recently moved a lot of the criticisms regarding Uber to Ridesharing company, but I don't think that's adequate. This source, for instance, deals specifically with Uber's policies regarding data sharing and pricing structure and does not necessarily apply equally to other companies. Besides, the structure of all three articles (Ridesharing company, Controversies involving Uber and Uber) is now confusing - for instance, the Ridesharing company article has a section called "Traffic congestion and carbon emissions", and then one subsection called "Congestion" under "Criticism". I edit mainly on ptwiki and don't feel comfortable challenging these decisions from an experienced editor here in enwiki, but I'm respectfully putting it out there and suggesting that the community looks into the matter.

Cheers.

Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fine for someone to disagree with my edits, whether they mainly edit here, ptwiki, or mostly just read.

The main purpose of the edits was to fix this mess - 20 sections of criticism (vs 2 sections of non-criticism), which alone is a glaring DUE issue for a company like Uber, but there's also the fact that some of the content here (attributed to Uber - one example, the comments in "Congestion" attributed just to Uber are actually to both Uber and Lyft in [5][6][7]) was actually attributed to ridesharing in general (by the sources). Addressing the content under 'Criticism' specifically (since that's the concern you've raised), it was already just a transclusion of the content in "Ridesharing company". Here is the wikitext source:

==Criticism==
{{#section-h::Ridesharing company|Criticism}}

which indicates we're just transcluding the generic ridesharing-company criticism on Uber's page. I don't think that's really appropriate. This content I didn't move over to "Ridesharing company", it was already there, being transcluded here. I did move over "Congestion" and "Impact", incorporating the latter in existing sub-sections. The new 'Congestion' and existing 'Traffic congestion and carbon emissions' sections could probably be condensed into one, but I think that's a simpler copyedit issue for that article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Controversies and criticisms associated with Uber should be on the Wikipedia Uber page. Moving criticisms to other pages effectively downplays them.

The Wikipedia Uber page should include a section on sexual assaults that have happened to Uber passengers and drivers. This is not a trivial matter. It appears that Uber receives about 3,000 reports of sexual assaults per year. A Google search for 'Uber sexual assault' currently lists about 6 million hits.

Mecanoge (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Uber used Greyball fake app to evade police across Europe, leak reveals

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/12/uber-used-greyball-fake-app-to-evade-police-across-europe-leak-reveals

John Cummings (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

A large amount of new references related to leaks from Uber

https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/uber-files

Lots of things here, any ideas on how to integrate it?

John Cummings (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Why request edits, when editing is not allowed?

At the head of this article is a request for clarification:

This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. In particular, the article assumes prior knowledge. Is it a taxi? Do drivers hold a taxi permit? Are they insured? How is it different from a regular taxi?. Please help clarify the article. There might be a discussion about this on the talk page. (July 2022)

However, the article is locked and can't be edited.

So, what's the point of the request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bgirlhero (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Dog ocean.

— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Completed peer review Dog ocean (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

"Uber South Korea" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Uber South Korea has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 27 § Uber South Korea until a consensus is reached. Largoplazo (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Update entire Wiki regarding Uber

I read the page and there are many issues, especially errors in spelling and sentence structure issues. Am I able to update this page to correct the many issues inside of it? Señor Jakob (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, go for it, WP:BE BOLD. If you have major changes that you want to make then you can also propose them here if you are unsure. - Indefensible (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I restored the previous History section. Making changes is fine but should be improving the article, how you replaced it was a clear downgrade that was largely unreferenced. - Indefensible (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you! Señor Jakob (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)