Copies of legal text[edit]

Please note that this is in the public domain, see below. I've updated the links to be directly to the ca.gov domain to make that more clear.

((PD-CAGov)) Verinote (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but it is still bad practice to just dump the text of regulations into an article. See WP:NOTREPOSITORY or WP:NOFULLTEXT. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The order itself was 70+ pages long. The regulatory file is longer than I can count. This process resulted in a very important definition being created, one which has been the subject of countless news articles and protests and is now the basis for entire businesses and which may significantly impact other business models. My goal was to highlight the essential definition and criteria for a TNC. I do not believe this violated copyright. I'm not sure it meets the definition of full text or repository. If you need the enormously longer full text it is at the CPUC website, which is also the repository for an order that created the definition and related documents. This is itself edited to be more useful, the drinking and driving element alone has 4 sub-parts in the actual text. I will look to simplify further where reasonable. I would suggest that you consider improving this article if possible. There is a lot of history missing, and there could be comparisons to international efforts etc. I just wanted to get the basics started in the wikipedia spirit. Every article now seems to be plastered with warnings but few improvements. I would encourage those issuing the warnings to consider contributing instead or to issue warnings with more care. Verinote (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Business model[edit]

Lots of people ask about the business model for these companies. The base model should be explained here then every company which does this should have a "business model" section which links here. If anyone has any sources talking about the business model of these sources of companies generally, then please share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tag for regional bias[edit]

I would like to dispute the tag regarding regional bias. The legal concept of a TNC only exists in California, so it is totally appropriate that this article only covers that region. An article doesn't need to cover regions where its topic doesn't apply. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no responses, I will go ahead and remove the tag. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of TNC should be expanded[edit]

The definition of TNC needs to be expanded in the summary to include more than just matching passengers to drivers. There is now at least one TNC for aviation called Flapper (company), Uber has moved into the boating space, and there is another TNC for boats called GetMyBoat. Wilipino (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 September 2019[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved per revised proposal below. bd2412 T 22:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation network company → Ridesharing – Ridesharing is by far the most popular term used now in national and international publications and on search. Alternative: Ridesharing company

Washington Post: "Lyft outlines all the reasons ridesharing could fail, in its IPO documents" ^[1]
NYT: "Rideshare, Delivery Apps Pledge $90M California Ballot Fight"^[2]
CNN: "New bill would make rideshare drivers benefits-eligible"^[3]
BBC: "Ride-sharing company Lyft"^[4]
Google Trends has rideshare at 69, ridesharing at 4, ridehailing at 0 (the AP suggestion), transportation network company at <1, and TNC (which can be many other things) at 23 for the week of Sept 1 - 7, 2019.^[5].
Usage of TNC is mainly limited to California law and insurance company usage.
The drivers themselves, including The Rideshare Guy, and driver's labor groups like Rideshare Drivers United, which are cited in news reports, also use this term.

Proposal is to add disambiguation at top of page: "See also carpooling, vanpooling, and peer-to-peer ridesharing", change the wording inside this article, and also move Legality of transportation network companies by jurisdiction to Legality of ridesharing companies by jurisdiction. I recognize that the proposed move to ridesharing is not a direct substitute for ridesharing company (that's an alternative option - there is an odd gap between rideshare->mainly carpools - and ridesharing/mainly leads to these companies). I believe a move away from transportation network company will be ultimately beneficial to knowledge and reflect WP:COMMONNAME.

References[edit]

9sovereign (talk) 03:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: It seems hard to distinguish the topic of this article from Peer-to-peer ridesharing, and it will be even harder if the proposed renaming takes place. I also notice that this appears to be a malformed multi-page move request. The rationale says that renaming the Legality of transportation network companies by jurisdiction article is part of the proposal, but this proposal didn't use the proper format for a multi-page move, so there is no notification on that article or on its Talk page to let readers know that its title is being considered for a change. I do agree that there is something strange about the current state of related articles. It surprises me that Ridesharing company is a red link. Transportation network company does not seem very recognizable. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving away from current title, for reasons of naturalness and recognizability. I do think "Ridesharing" would be an improvement, but I'm not yet convinced it's the best option. A few thoughts:
- New York Times was the first news source I checked, and they seem to actually use the term "ride-hailing companies" (example). The NYT source linked in nom seems to be a dead link, but based on the URL I'm guessing it was a piece from the AP that they ran, not original reporting from NYT. That makes me a little more dubious about RS usage.
- As BarrelProof said, the talk page of Legality of transportation network companies by jurisdiction should be notified if you intend for it to be in the scope of this RM.
- I wonder if adding "app" to the title (i.e. Ridesharing app, Ride-hailing app) would improve recognizability and precision. Are there any significant services falling under this umbrella that don't primarily manifest as apps?

Colin M (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Messy! This should have been a multi-move with a heads-up at talk:Ridesharing for a start. And apart from that the format of this RM still seems unfixable, but IMO in any case no case has been made that this particular form of ridesharing is the Primary Topic of the term, nor that ridesharing is the common name (as observed above). Agree that this is not the best title, but IMO best have some informal discussion as to what article(s) we want on the general topic, and start a fresh RM if a move is part of the answer. Andrewa (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ridesharing company but not just ridesharing Red Slash 03:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to this alternative proposal. Andrewa (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from requester. Thanks for pointing out the multi-page move request format and the issues with purely ridesharing. After more investigation, I believe ridesharing company is a better title for the proposed move, I propose to submit a multi-page move request for transportation network company to ridesharing company, to avoid disrupting ridesharing and to generate discussion, and include legality of transportation network companies by jurisdiction in discussions. It seems I should not close a move request that I am involved in e.g. Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, so I will let an admin take care of that, even in if it means there will temporarily be two open move requests. 9sovereign (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 28 September 2019[edit]

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 22:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Ridesharing company is the proposed move target, as it is a WP:COMMON term used now in national and international publications and on search. I do recognize that Ridehailing company is also proposed and used by many sources, though I believe the usage is not quite as common, it is still a good choice and improvement.

Washington Post: "Lyft outlines all the reasons ridesharing could fail, in its IPO documents" ^[1]
CNN: "New bill would make rideshare drivers benefits-eligible"^[2]
BBC: "Ride-sharing company Lyft"^[3]
NYT: "The airport was one of the first to license ride-sharing companies"^[4]
LA Times: "ride-sharing giants Uber and Lyft" ^[5], "The legislation also gave rideshare and app-based delivery drivers..." ^[6]
Usage of TNC is mainly limited to California law and insurance company usage.
The drivers themselves, including The Rideshare Guy (with discussion of terminology)^[7], and driver's labor groups like Rideshare Drivers United^[8], which are cited in news reports, also use this term.

There are also conflicting usages of rideshare/ridehailing, including by the same media sources above (NYT - ^[9], WSJ ^[10], and even by the AP, which has used both - ^[11] ^[12]. Ultimately, I believe the broader popularity of usage is with ridesharing company especially considering search: Google Trends has rideshare at 60, ridesharing at 3, ridehailing at 1, ridehail at <1, transportation network company at 1 for the week of Sept 15 - 21, 2019.^[13]. 9sovereign (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Support, but normally we wait for the first move request to close before starting a new one! ((editrequest)) - can someone please close that first one? I would love to but I'm involved. Red Slash 04:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be ride-hailing, not ridesharing[edit]

Ridesharing means sharing a ride with other passengers. This is different from what most of these companies offer. This is rightly discussed also in the article. So why this improper name? --Ita140188 (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 October 2019[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ridesharing company → Ride-hailing company – While many publications report the incorrect term ridesharing, the proper term for the service described in this article is ride-hailing. The name ridesharing for this page is also misleading as there are also proper ridesharing services, where more than one passenger share the same ride. The page was moved from the less used but less ambiguous transportation network company with very limited discussion and dubious consensus. Ita140188 (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. The common name is ridesharing, even if it might be technically inaccurate._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While "ridesharing company" is much more common than "transportation network company" (the old name of this article), it is not significantly more common than "ride-hailing company". For example, searching on Google "ridesharing company" [1] returns 340,000 results, while "ride-hailing company" [2] returns 319,000 results. It seems like the terms are used interchangeably, but ride-hailing is the correct one and also is a natural disambiguation for a potential future article about the actual ridesharing services, which are more and more common. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my circumstantial experience as an avid news reader, I've literally never heard the term "ride-hailing". In my circumstantial experience as an Uber rider, almost all my rides have literally been "ride sharing" with someone else, which I don't recall being able to do in a standard taxi. "Ride hailing" appears to be an attempt to rebrand Ubers as taxis so they can be treated as such by the government, but that is not recognized in a large number of places. I am overall not convinced that this name change is necessary outside of an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My personal experience is the opposite. However, we are not really discussing personal experiences. A quick Google search reveals that the two terms are often used interchangeably by news site and other popular publications. Since I think it is important to distinguish the personal transport service and the pooled transport service (riding with other users), and this article mainly deals with the first, it is natural to call the article with a non-ambiguous term that is also common. I don't see how this is related to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Ita140188 (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Never referred to as "ride-hailing" in the UK, and the evidence suggests that "ridesharing" is much more common in the US too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a reference to your statements? For example, these random BBC articles about London and Uber use the term "ride-hailing" [3] [4], so your statement seems not true about the UK. Can you prove it is "much more common" in the US? --Ita140188 (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please consider that according to WP:COMMONNAME "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Ridesharing in this context is obviously ambiguous, as it refers also (or mainly) to services that match more than one passenger for the same ride (such as UberPool). --Ita140188 (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~: If this were really the common name for the topic, which is a topic familiar to practically everyone who lives in modern society, it wouldn't be a red link. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am also surprised it is a red link. However, Google searches reveal that the terms are more or less used at the same rate. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is surprising, but I confirm it. (Prior opposition struck through above.) In fact, the number of exact matches is surprisingly low for all three of "ridesharing company", "ride-sharing company" and "ride-hailing company", and is actually higher for the "hailing" variant (which is also more precise, since most rides on Uber or Lyft do not involve sharing the vehicle with other passengers). Google Ngram viewer doesn't find any of them (but only covers up to 2008). —BarrelProof (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "ridesharing" is the COMMONNAME, per above. – Levivich 16:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose to merge Peer-to-peer ridesharing into Ridesharing company. I think that the content in the Peer-to-peer ridesharing article can easily be explained in the context of Ridesharing company, and the Ridesharing company article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Peer-to-peer ridesharing will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwriter700 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support, this page should probably be merged as you suggested, but not only for its historical information for Ridesharing company but it should also be merged with peer-to-peer economy/Sharing economy. Cheers DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This proposal was made by an editor who subsequently deleted the other article and has since been blocked for disruptive editing. See also Talk:Peer-to-peer ridesharing#Merger proposal. Peer-to-peer ridesharing is a specific form of carpooling, while ridesharing companies offer a service that competes with taxis. I've reverted this "merge" and am closing this proposal as a nonstarter. The driver and the rider in a ridesharing company agreement are only "peers" in the sense that they are both poor in comparison to the owners of the ridesharing company. They aren't peers in the sense of both wanting to travel from somewhere in the vicinity of a "point A" to somewhere in the vicinity of a "point B".
Having said that, a lot of the content in Peer-to-peer ridesharing does seem to be off-topic there and probably should be moved to here, as Despite multiple efforts to re-name the category, it still is commonly referred to as, "ridesharing". – wbm1058 (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change "Criticism" section to "Impact" section[edit]

Wikipedia articles are not bullet points for pro and con debate clubs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest integrating the "impact" bits organically into the body of the article and eliminating a special ghetto section. Elizium23 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.appicial.com/uber-clone-script.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]