Talk:Airbnb

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

@Westminster88: Thank you for reviewing the above request. I'd like to submit another. This COVID-19 response section has two sentences, but the layoff is already mentioned in the History section and information about cancellations due to COVID-19 are mentioned in the Cancellations section. The separate COVID-19 section seems redundant. If editors agree, could someone please update the article on my behalf? Thanks! AK Airbnb (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Reply 26-OCT-2020

  Clarification requested  

• To expedite your request, it would help if you could provide the following information:

1. Please state each specific desired change and accompanying reference in the form of verbatim statements which can then be added to the article (if approved) by the reviewer.
2. The exact location where the desired claims are to be placed should be given.
3. Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text and/or references to be removed should also be given.^[1]
4. Reasons should be provided for each change.^[2]

• In the section of text below titled Sample edit request, the four required items are shown as an example:

More information Sample edit request ...

Sample edit request

1. Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section: "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length." 2. Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section: "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length." 3. Using as the reference: Prisha Harinath (2020). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1. 4. Reason for change being made: "The previously given diameter was incorrect."

Close

• Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with all four items from your request. Thank you!

Regards,  Spintendo  14:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

References

1. [1]

   "Template:Request edit". Wikipedia. 30 December 2019. Instructions for Submitters: Describe the requested changes in detail. This includes the exact proposed wording of the new material, the exact proposed location for it, and an explicit description of any wording to be removed, including removal for any substitution.
2. [2]

   "Template:Request edit". Wikipedia. 30 December 2019. Instructions for Submitters: If the rationale for a change is not obvious (particularly for proposed deletions), explain.

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

@Spintendo: Thank you for reviewing the above request. I will try to follow your requested format, but I'm not sure I need to use all 4 steps because I am not seeking to add content.

1. Please remove the "COVID-19 response" section, which has the following text: "In a letter to employees, CEO Brian Chesky said the company was letting 1,900 of its 7,500 workers go due to the COVID-19 pandemic and cutting businesses that don't directly support home-sharing. Those include its investments in hotels, air transportation, and movie production.^[1]"
2. Reason: The "History" section already says, "On May 5, 2020, Brian Chesky sent a memo to all employees announcing the company would be laying off approximately 1,900 employees, or about 25% of its workforce in the Americas, Europe, and Asia due to the COVID-19 pandemic.^[2]" If editors prefer to keep mention of "investments in hotels, air transportation, and movie production", by all means, but can this be merged into the "History" section? My goal here is to trim redundancy and remove the separate heading since the section only has 2 sentences. I hope this clarifies. AK Airbnb (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

References

1. [1]

   AP (2020-05-06). "Airbnb laying off 1,900 employees due to travel decline amid coronavirus pandemic". ABC7 New York. Retrieved 2020-06-10.
2. [2]

   Yurieff, Kaya (2020-05-05). "Airbnb is laying off 25% of its employees". CNN. Retrieved 2020-05-05.

AK Airbnb, I agree that the section is redundant and have therefore  Implemented the suggested change. Thank you for complying with our paid contribution disclosure policies and best, Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

This article could use a pretty major rewrite, much of it falls under WP:PROSELINE and the separate article Timeline of Airbnb is not any better. - Indefensible (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The history section is out of hand. Sawitontwitter (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Does the regulations by jurisdiction section accurately capture the news regarding NYC's ban? The copy in article seems to be correct, but it doesn't seem like it's been updated recently to reflect the recent law, so I'm a little confused and wondering if I'm missing something. https://www.wired.com/story/airbnb-ban-new-york-city/ Sawitontwitter (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The sentence currently in the lead gives undue weight to Israeli settlement compared to other controversies. Perhaps the best course of action would be to delete the sentence entirely or mention other controversies as well. Thesmallthings123 (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The organisation has certainly had its fair share of controversies in its relatively short existence, not least being implicated in the shortage of availability of long-term lets for tenants in many cities in the western world. I'd agree with including more of them in the lede. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 29 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NorthShoreLife (article contribs). Peer reviewers: JuiceJohnson.

— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Glman

Hello,

It appears my article contribution was removed from the Airbnb Wiki page, and I am seeking specific answers as to why, so I may revise my draft accordingly. Please let me know what I may work on, or provide me with some revision advice.

Thanks,

Garrett NorthShoreLife (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2024 and 4 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pomegranate.a (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Pomegranate.a (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@DMacks and Jay8g: well. There is indeed something funny going with the summary here, and peculiarly it's not even with a consistent bias. E.g, the text claims that Airbnb is responsible for 20% of tourism emissions, while the study actually states: Collectively, accommodation accounts for about 1 per cent of global emissions and 20 per cent of tourism emissions. - that is, all types of accommodation incl. hotels etc. Plus the first two refs are duplicates of each other. That does indeed smell of LLM. So, agree on de-merits that this stuff is likely not to be trusted. (It's still neither promotional nor off-topic, but that is beside the point under the circumstances) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Elmidae -- it's a low-effort student assignment, see the section directly above and WP:ENB#NAS 348 Global Climate Change promotional content. The original text the student added was highly promotional, but some other editors trimmed it down a bit before I decided to remove it entirely. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I did the trimming-down, and the content wasn't overtly promotional even before that. But whatevs. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I'm not sure what content to write but here are some lead refs holding up AirBnB as an example of the sharing economy (the second one is a whole special issue devoted to it):

• Quattrone, Giovanni; Kusek, Natalia; Capra, Licia (2022). "A global-scale analysis of the sharing economy model – an AirBnB case study". EPJ Data Science. 11 (1): 36. doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-022-00349-3. PMC 9244437. PMID 35789663.
• Hall, C. Michael; Prayag, Girish; Safonov, Alexander; Coles, Tim; Gössling, Stefan; Naderi Koupaei, Sara (2022). "Airbnb and the sharing economy". Current Issues in Tourism. 25 (19): 3057–3067. doi:10.1080/13683500.2022.2122418.

DMacks (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sure there are many, many more sources which could be used for this, but I think we still need context. My concern is that "sharing economy" is broad and somewhat ambiguous, so I don't think we should take this for granted. A deeper and more subtle issue is that these companies use 'sharing' as a mild euphemism. My assessment is that platform economy is a more neutral term for this which avoids this ambiguity over the term 'sharing'. (That article is also better-written and more directly relevant to this topic). Navboxes cannot include any of this context, so I think it would be beneficial to explain this neutrally before including it in a navbox. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

TIL that platform economy is a thing. I agree it fits better and that AirBnB doesn't match at least one of the major meanings of sharing economy. DMacks (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to note that I agree that this item is relevant to this article (not just Joe Gebbia) and that a short mention is not undue, nor does it represent egregious duplication. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2025 and 23 April 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Basketball2025-5, Felix Trojan (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Felix Trojan (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should the "Criticism and controversies" section discuss the impact of service fees on guest costs? Fees: Airbnb’s service fees range from 14% to 20% of the booking total for guests. While these fees are framed as necessary for "platform maintenance and customer support", Critics argue that these fees contribute to disproportionately high costs for guests and raise questions about the platform’s profit margins. When combined with cleaning fees and taxes, Airbnb bookings can cost 30–50% more than the advertised nightly rate. This pricing model not only misleads travelers but also inflates the perceived value of short-term rentals, further skewing the housing market. Sources: Why Airbnb has a pricing problem, and what to do about it Behind Airbnb’s Pricing Policy Shift: Ending Hidden Fee Backlash for Good Since When Did Airbnb Become AirbnFees? - Cheapism Jjj3190 (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC) Should the Criticism section of the Airbnb article include sourced content discussing allegations of review suppression and its impact on transparency and consumer trust? Suggested Content: Censorship of Negative Reviews Airbnb has faced criticism for allegedly censoring or suppressing negative guest reviews, raising concerns about transparency and consumer trust. While the platform maintains policies to remove reviews that violate its content guidelines—such as those deemed irrelevant, retaliatory, or containing prohibited language—some critics argue that these mechanisms may be used to remove legitimate complaints. Reports have surfaced of hosts disputing unfavorable reviews and successfully having them removed, sometimes by submitting misleading evidence or citing ambiguous policy violations. Additionally, some guests have reported that Airbnb did not reinstate reviews even after providing documentation supporting their claims. These concerns have led to broader discussions about whether Airbnb’s moderation practices prioritize brand reputation and host satisfaction over transparency, potentially limiting access to honest feedback and obscuring safety-related issues for future travelers. Sources: The Dark Side of AirBnBs - Business Review at Berkeley

Jjj3190 (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the RFC tags from this discussion, as this is an inappropriate use of the RfC process. There has been no prior discussion, and it isn't an appropriate use of the community's time to hold an RfC every time someone's edits are reverted. If, after attempting to discuss your changes, there is either no response or no consensus then you should consider opening an RfC. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 22:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

JJJ, did you use an WP:LLM to write this talk page post? The tone and formatting seem very similar to ChatGPT-generate content. glman (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your question and your continued engagement. I do use Ai, but only as a tool with strict limitations, to refactor my own original content; to enhance readability, and when necessary, improve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Jjj3190 (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

To what extent? The formatting and tone of your initial post in this thread appears to be directly copied from ChatGPT. glman (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Already answered. It has that formatting and tone because I use it specifically for help with formatting and tone—to enhance readability and if necessary, improve Neutral Point of View. This is the textbook appropriate use of Ai. This will be my final comment on the matter. Jjj3190 (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Additional support for consensus has been expressed by User:Mikeycdiamond on my talk page at User talk:Jjj3190#September 2025 Jjj3190 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Mikeycdiamond's comments on your talk page express no support for reinserting your text, simply for discussing it here. glman (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I will allow others to decide if his comments express support for consensus: "...the RfC looks mostly fine. The one suggestion I have is that you should put the name of a publication or author instead of constantly using the word critics. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjj3190 (talk • contribs)

I would prefer if you'd not put my signature on your comments. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, I was referring to the content of the text. I didn't have the time to look over the sources, so my comments doesn't apply to the sourcing. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The first three sources you've linked all appear unreliable. The first is an advertisement article on the site of a product, the second does not appear to be a reliable site, and only lists AirBNB's policy changes, the third appears to also be an opinion piece. The fourth is a student-written blog pieces, but it could link out to some useful sites. glman (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Might as well also post here what I posted at ANI since it's a content issue. The gist is that the edits in question did not improve neutral point of view, but the opposite.

Take this, which inserts opinions like Among the most alarming safety concerns ("alarming" according to whom? What if someone finds other concerns more alarming, or isn't alarmed at all?) and adds weasel wording like raising concerns about transparency and consumer trust and These practices have led to broader concerns (whose concerns?). They also insert several unsourced paragraphs with synthesis issues, such as the claim that Airbnb's hidden fees have become a focal point in the broader debate over housing affordability, which is not only editorializing but ridiculous -- in the housing-prices debate, with all its enormity, a "focal point" is... one company's laundry fees? Worse, the edit also appears to have inserted at least one error. The edit states that Tens of thousands of complaints have been filed with Airbnb over the past decade regarding hidden cameras in rental properties. The number from the original source is 111 complaints in 5 years.

This is just one diff, and I didn't even review it all that thoroughly, just spot-checked a few paragraphs. In other words, this is below the bare minimum amount of review that AI text needs, and also seems to be below the amount of review that was done. Gnomingstuff (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Exactly why I reverted the edit in the first place. Thank you! glman (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

a fire damaged siding on Airbnb rental still remains damage after a few years ago. Kluge Rd.property Cypress Tx ~2026-54097-6 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

As per WP:NSUSTAINED & WP:SBST, this single event does not appear to be notable. Peaceray (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Pats322: thanks for the work you did on the article! I saw that you put this sentence in the intro as part of that work Airbnb does not have a loyalty program, in part attributed to its lack of business customers. I am wondering if the intro is the best place for that. Might it fit better in ''Corporate affairs'' or ''Guest review system''? Would be curious if you had any thoughts. I have a COI so I can't move that myself. Cheers PY Airbnb (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)