This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
The caption on the photo reads "A "nest" of scooters on a sidewalk in San Jose, California, making the sidewalk unpassable for wheelchair users.". This doesn't sound neutral, but I think it's also just plain wrong, as the sidewalk does not appear blocked in the photo.
David G (
talk) 02:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)reply
The valuation of this company is a big problem. I removed the $2 billion valuation because the number was quoted as a "source." Currently, the page was edited to make the valuation of $1 billion. That number was generated by Sequoia Financial. It should be noted that both Bird and Sequoia Financial are both privately held companies with no requirement of financial disclosure. Neither company is under any legal requirement to provide justification for valuation statements.
Nwyant (
talk) 17:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Issues with the article
The article is a disaster. I tried to purge the offending material, but since that got reverted, some major work is needed to clean up the article.
I agree that the article needs to be re-edited so that it would be more balanced and have better flow. I agree with you that more positive material needs to be added to the article that is derived from verifiable third-party sources per
WP:VERIFY and
WP:INDEPENDENT, and not via the company's PR department.
Sources are need to be found for unsupported material or needs to be deleted. Except for extremely rare cases, blogs do not qualify as reliable sources.
However, the negative material that has been previously published as news in an established newspaper, magazine, or other news outlet that can be traced to a particular author (via the byline) should not be systematically removed. If the original material is flawed, it needs to be discussed. According to the existing sources, many of the "controversies" can equally apply to Lime and other competitors since local communities involved make no distinction in company ownership when impounding illegally parked scooters. Negative news concerning Bird appear to make the headlines of local newspaper more often than Lime because Bird is able to establish a business presence in a new community before their rivals. As a cost of being "first", they also the first to get the resulting bad publicity as the result of being the first company on the scene to inundate the new community with scooters before new local regulations could be formulated, which angers the local government and citizens in the process.
It's funny you mention the PR firm - I'm a journalist who came here because I got contacted by the same PR firm in the Verge article to do a hit piece on Bird. I came here out of curiosity to find that they apparently got here first. I have nothing against well-sourced criticism, but what's there now is clearly written by someone with an axe to grind. Your point about the competitors is interesting because I just took a look and they have no criticism at all. Your point about being first makes sense, but the fact that none of their pages say anything, strongly suggests to me that this article was written by the same PR firm that contacted me. Here's what I think the controversy section more appropriately should be. Let me know what you think:
Safety concerns: are scooters more or less safe than bicycles or cars or walking? How many riders have they injured and how many bystanders? Does Bird do anything to make scooters more or less safe? The Washington Post article just says that scooter injuries are up since before they existed, which is kind of a stupid point.
Municipal: We can keep it how it is, I suppose, but it seems way overkill to me to have a link to every impounded city, even those that gave a permit to Bird later.
Independent contractors: this should be taken from the Charger section and added here instead.
Vandalism: I actually don't think this belongs at all - I don't see how criminal activity by others counts as a controversy for the company. If I went out and smashed a bunch of Walmart windows, Wikipedia shouldn't link to my exploits and count it as a controversy for Walmart.
The current Illegal Parking section reads like pure POV, speculating about the motives and incentives of a rider: the last time I used the app, it asked me to take a picture of my parking, so I assume that the company uses that to verify if you are parking correctly.
As for "positives" to add, I think it should include:
A list of cities
How the app actually works
The effects that adding alternative transportation has had
I don't really think of these as positives, just what the company actually does. We don't need praise, just basic facts.
68.196.108.48 (
talk) 05:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Nothing about birdgraveyard?
This article sounds like it was written by the company. How is there no mention of birdgraveyard?
140.182.73.13 (
talk) 20:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion: