Talk:Bird Global

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.

68.196.108.48 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

Un-neutral, possibly incorrect image caption

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]

Fixed. Λυδ α cιτγ 09:46, 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.

This is particularly relevant in light of the previous comment alleging bias + the Verge reporting that Lime had hired a PR firm to spread negative news about Bird (which is what brought me here in the first place) - https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/16/18098734/facebook-definers-public-relations-firm-apple-google-bird - which possibly explains why the Controversy section is longer than the rest of the article 68.196.108.48 (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 is my opinion that the article as it is currently written, does not mentions other significant controversies, such as the class-action lawsuit that was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in October against before both Lime and Bird concerning injuries caused by their equipment. ( https://www.curbed.com/2018/10/22/18009492/bird-lime-scooter-lawsuit-los-angeles ) or the huge increase in trauma injuries being treated in hospital emergency rooms in communities in which either Lime and Bird began new operations. ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/scooter-use-is-rising-in-major-cities-so-are-trips-to-the-emergency-room/2018/09/06/53d6a8d4-abd6-11e8-a8d7-0f63ab8b1370_story.html )

On the flip side, the article could mention the new service that Bird just began to offer that would allow a day long rental ( https://www.engadget.com/2018/10/04/bird-deliver-scooters-all-day-access/ ) and the few other positive things, such as paying local taxes to maintain sidewalks. - 50.195.200.161 (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Bird App.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bird was bought by Bird Canada in December 2022

the recent purchase of spin was by Bird Canada as well. Not bird.

https://betakit.com/bird-canada-takes-international-counterpart-bird-global-under-its-wing-in-merger/ 208.98.222.46 (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]