Talk:Waymo

Archives (Index)

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Recent funding round

Hello! On behalf of Waymo and as part of my work at Beutler Ink (which I've disclosed at the top of this page), I'd like to submit a request to add mention of the most recent funding round, per many sources: The Wall Street Journal, The Verge, Reuters, Forbes, Automotive News, CNN, TechCrunch, etc.

I'm open to editors' preferred wording and citation(s), but here's specific text for consideration:

• Waymo raised $2.5 billion in a second funding round in June 2021.

References

Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Added. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Spelling correction

On behalf of Waymo, I'm submitting a request to change "Weymo" to "Waymo" in the sentence, "In March 2022, Weymo said that they will begin offering rides in San Francisco without a driver." I don't edit articles directly because of my conflict of interest, so I'm hoping User:Yasuo Miyakawa or another editor can correct the typo on my behalf. Thanks in advance! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Closing as Already done @Yasuo Miyakawa: Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Waymo One Trusted Tester program

Hello again! On behalf of Waymo and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I'd like to submit a request to add mention of the Waymo One Trusted Tester program, per The Arizona Republic and Phoenix Business Journal. I'm open to editors' preferred wording and citation(s), but here's specific text for consideration:

• In May 2022, after testing with employees, Waymo launched its Waymo One Trusted Tester program for residents in Downtown Phoenix. The research-focused initiative asks participants to share feedback during their rides, and is similar to the program launched in San Francisco in August 2021.

References

@InfiniteNexus and Yasuo Miyakawa: Pinging you two as previous reviewers. Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Your text itself seems to be good with good cite course. No problem. Other thing caught my eye; inconsistency of date format throughout this article...Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Added. I've fixed the date formatting issue as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing and updating the article. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding a backlash section

Waymo testing has caused backlash and tension with San Francisco and some other cities. I am not sure how to exactly format it in, or where it would belong, so I included it in the road testing section. homo momo (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Waymo One update

Hello again! On behalf of Waymo and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I'd like to submit a request to update the text about Waymo One to note an additional expansion in the Phoenix metropolitan area in 2023, per The Arizona Republic, KTAR-FM, and City Sun Times, among other sources.

Currently, Waymo#Waymo says: "In May 2022, Waymo launched its Waymo One Trusted Tester program for residents in Phoenix, Arizona. In May 2022, Waymo announced that it would expand the program to more areas of Phoenix." This is accurate, but outdated.

Sources for existing text

References

I'm open to editors' preferred wording and citation(s), but here's specific text for consideration:

• In 2023, coverage of the Waymo One area was increased by 45 square miles, expanding the world's largest contiguous autonomous vehicle service area to include downtown Mesa, uptown Phoenix, and South Mountain Village.

References

@InfiniteNexus and Yasuo Miyakawa: Pinging you two as previous reviewers, if you're willing to take a look and update the article on my behalf. Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done but text omitted: Thank you for the update and your contributions to Wikipedia. I've removed a small selection of text so as to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERT. Let me know if the changes are satisfactory.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 18:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Urropean Thanks for updating the article! I will mark this request as answered. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Need a WP:RS to support claim about Miami

The current source is a hotel blog which has serious WP:RS issues because it amounts to a WP:SPS. The hotel blog claims that Waymo service with safety drivers is already available in Miami as of 2025. I did a quick check of Google and Google News and I don't see any standard news media sources making that claim. I also don't see any reports on Reddit or other social media sites from people reporting on what it was like to ride in a Waymo vehicle with a safety driver in Miami, which one would expect if Waymo had already begun revenue service in that city. Can anyone find a better source? Otherwise, that claim needs to go. Coolcaesar (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It’s real.https://waymo.com/blog/2024/12/next-stop-miami#:~:text=In%20early%202025%2C%20we'll,via%20the%20Waymo%20One%20app. В²C ☎ 06:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not right. The Waymo blog post from December 2024 is careful to make clear that they are not in revenue service right now, but it's coming in 2026, by saying "we'll work to open our doors to riders in 2026."

The hotel blog currently linked in the article is actually saying that you can book a Waymo ride right now with a safety driver in Miami, as right now in 2025. But I have not seen any reliable source saying that. In contrast, when Waymo has launched revenue service with or without a safety driver, they have consistently posted announcements to their blog making that clear that one can book a ride immediately. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Generations

The article currently describes Zeekr as "6th gen", but doesn't mention Hyundai, which has already started testing in the Bay Area. I'm not sure if these are using the same hardware though.

More generally, we should add a table of all their known vehicles and which ones are currently operating. Asamboi (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

"2025 power outage" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2025 power outage 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/2025 December 31 § 2025 power outage until a consensus is reached. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

"2025 San Francisco power outage" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2025 San Francisco power outage 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/2025 December 31 § 2025 San Francisco power outage until a consensus is reached. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Undue weight?

Hi, again! On behalf of Waymo, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I am hoping to have a discussion about the Incidents and controversies section, which has grown significantly in recent months. I am particularly interested in gaining a better understanding of the inclusion criteria for text in the Accidents subsection, which currently has claims that are only related to the company because a Waymo vehicle is involved. For example, "On July 6, 2024, a cyclist was hospitalized after hitting a Waymo" is based on this local news source, which says "a cyclist may have made intentional contact with a Waymo robotaxi during an alleged crash". The article is essentially about a cyclist pretending to be hit by a vehicle. There is also "On February 6, 2025, three Waymo passengers were hospitalized after a hit and run by a human driver", which is based on a local news source about a driver who slammed into the back of a Waymo, injuring passengers. Neither of these accidents received widespread coverage (plus, the coverage they have received is WP:ROUTINE), nor are they Waymo incidents in any meaningful sense. In the same vein, if someone were to crash a bike into, say, a Toyota, would that accident be included on the Toyota page?

Per WP:UNDUE and WP:VNOT, which says "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included", I'm curious if editors would consider removing select claims that are tangentially related to the company, or are otherwise routine. Otherwise, text about any accident involving a Waymo vehicle is being given the same weight as text about the company's operations as a whole. Should this content follow a more standardized approach similar to how other industries handle incident reporting? For example, WikiProject Aviation houses Aircraft accidents and incidents, which is an essay (not policy) that offers guidance about when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles about airports, airlines, and aircrafts. I am curious, are any editors aware of similar guidance for automobile accidents? I did come across WikiProject Highways/Automobile accidents and incidents; while this is specific to updating articles about roads and highways, perhaps it could apply to companies as well. If more relevant guidance pages exist, I'd appreciate any helpful links.

I'm also wondering if there might be a way to summarize the incidents, rather than list them out individually. What does a reader learn from a list of minor incidents that they would not get from a summary? I understand that Waymo is a novel technology, and with that comes public scrutiny of incidents. Mentioning and summarizing these issues makes sense, but in its current form, it is bloated, and the article would benefit from clear direction from the community about how to handle incidents. I'm starting a general discussion, before submitting edit requests with rewritten text or to flag select claims. Thanks for any and all helpful feedback! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Numberguy6:, sources can verify that something happened. That verification maybe reliable. However, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, I question the due weight of having an exhaustive list of every accident simply because governmental regulations say all autonomous vehicle incidents are to be logged. So, it's not being doubted that it happened, but I question the value of including incidents like a motorcycle crashed into the back of a car that happens to be a Waymo, then another car ran over the motorcyclist. Perhaps this should be split into "list of Waymo accidents". The decision to include is based on collective editorial consensus. Please engage in discussion and achieve consensus for inclusion of what you'd like to include. This is at risk of becoming a coatrack article. Graywalls (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Graywalls: How about requiring two secondary sources per accident to establish notability? Most of the "irrelevant" ones only have one source. Numberguy6 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

that's a start, though i'm not sure that prove dueness for the other incidents with two sourcing, we can remove the "irrelevant" ones and see what it looks like from there User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know whether there is any precedent for this, by my preference would be to only include accidents where the Waymo car is at fault, (or likely potentially at fault), like:

On May 21, 2024, a Waymo hit a utility pole

On December 8, 2025, two Waymos collided ---Avatar317^(talk) 02:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Avatar317 and Numberguy6:, I believe applying the general concept behind WP:IMGCONTENT and WP:IG maybe a good idea in this case, even though we're not talking photos. The idea here is that for an article like sunflower, having a few pictures is essential to show what it looks like. Having a few helps to visualize more so than just one, but when a whole bunch of them gets added, it becomes information pollution more so than helpful. My preference would be to focus on things that that put autonomous-driving AI, especially something specific to Waymo developed software judgment into question; or incidents that draws attention to how the company Waymo handled the matter. Also, we could consider shifting some of the contents out into List of Waymo accidents as a compromise, per WP:NLIST. There's no universally accepted consensus saying "two sources and it's in" but I've seen this being used in articles like List of one-hit wonders in the United States. "Two sources and in" would bloat the article unduly. Particularly when a notable person or a notable vehicle model is involved. Such as intoxicated A-list popstar in a Lamborghini hit a stopped Volvo Waymo. Are we gonna cover this in the popstar, Volvo, Waymo, impaired driving and Lamborghini and anything you can think of? Graywalls (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I really like/support your idea of - focus on things that that put autonomous-driving AI, especially something specific to Waymo developed software judgment into question; or incidents that draws attention to how the company Waymo handled the matter. - because that is why Waymo is notable; cars are not their product, and unlike Volvo which aims to sell cars in which you are safe (even from rogue drivers) Waymo has never used this as a selling point for their service.

But I don't think this should be limited by the Image Gallery policies; (hopefully not) but if Waymo keeps having accidents that fit the above category, we should continue to report on this as a timeline. One would hope that these diminish in frequency/severity over time. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

agree we need to keep this broad strokes. we cannot do coatrack. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Along with the discussion above, I want to emphasize that it's imperative that we collectively work to not be swayed by corporate communications and public relations professionals working at the behest of corporations to shift editorial decisions on matters that rest within community editorial consensus. Those are things whose factual accuracy is not disputed, but are neither prohibited by policy nor customarily expected to be covered in articles. Things that are customarily expected include the basic facts, like when a company was established, who the founders are, and such.

Things that fall in neither required nor prohibited as long as factual claim is properly cited and confirmed to reliable sources

Unflattering - "A motorcycle crashed into the back of a Waymo and was injured" or "company's driver was cited for speeding and was found guilty"

Flattering - " something was listed in x-th place in top 100 profitable business owned by non-binary identifying people under age 40 and it is first such business in this township" "The Local Newspaper's reviewer said it was one of the best rides he's experienced"

In my experience, corporate PR requestors often try to seek inclusion of the flattering minutiae while seeking to suppress unflattering ones and I'm saying volunteer editors should make their own decision and discuss among themselves rather and decide on encyclopedic merits rather than being influenced by corporate PR requestors and these are things that remain in the gray area, meaning that it's up to community consensus.

Graywalls (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Completely agree. I thought that was one of the wonderful things about Wikipedia; that what you are requesting is (to my knowledge) the status quo for Wikipedia. (or maybe I just haven't seen enough articles on corporations? I don't edit too many of them compared to the other subjects I'm interested in.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Seen a few folks who have declared COIs attempting to do obvious edit requests in favor of their corporations. An editor or two who i suspect have COIs especially with regards to AFC or editting their own bios.

wikipedia ranks high on search metrics and even if it doesnt it ranks high on whats retrieved by AI summaries User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree @Graywalls, thank you.

So, @Inkian Jason, I have to say, as a COI editor, please take care when starting a mini-policy discussion on an article. You are taking volunteer time away from other projects to consider something that, in some cases, may only benefit your client. That may actually be the case in this instance. If you have specific, well-sourced suggestions about things to remove, I think my preference and wikipedia policy lean toward you just make the edit requests, rather than giving us a 490-word comment and starting a mini-policy procedure. That said, maybe other editors have different preferences.

As for your suggestion "I'm also wondering if there might be a way to summarize the incidents, rather than list them out individually," I think that is comment is really not ok. An editor with your experience, and especially seeing the history of this company and of policymaking in this area, should know that suggestion would hurt the encyclopedia and public understanding, to the benefit of your client. Replacing all of these incidents would be a sharp deviation from the WP:RS and obscure the way these incidents have shaped policy and the company. For example, there was an incident of Waymo interfering with fire department operations, which led to the discovery of more incidents, which led to a policy debate and, according to Waymo, product improvements. Then this year, the same thing happened with passing school buses as children left the bus. Statistics would hide this detail. Also, creating statistics is fraught, because it could dip into original research or could rely on Waymo's own stats. Why is the latter a problem? Waymo has been unusually assertive in trying to keep bad stats out of the public eye. One example is Waymo's recent claim that the number of Waymo's stalled on S.F. streets during a blackout is a trade secret.[1]

I do not think we need a mini-policy at this point. We can handle it case-by-case. Early reports of these incidents may have limited coverage, but an editor may use judgment that they are notable. The first reports of a Waymo passing a school bus falls into this pattern. I think it just had one source for a while. Similarly, early reports often don’t reveal who is at fault. Later information may develop that makes them more relevant.

If we want to look at specific bullets to remove, let's just focus on what would make the article better. Chris vLS (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Text correction re: service area

Hi, again! I'd like to submit a text correction related to service areas. Currently, the bottom of the History section says:

• Also in November 2025, the operating area in Northern California was expanded to include Santa Rosa and Sacramento. The Southern California operating areas was expanded to stretch from the Mexican border to Ventura County. This new permit area was approved by the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

References

The CBS News article used as an inline citation confirms that Waymo received a permit to operate in this larger area, but the service area has not been expanded yet. This is confirmed by the source, which says, "The robotaxi company has not announced a rollout plan or timeline for when the new permitted areas could expect the driverless cars." Could editors correct this text for clarification purposes? User:Ysangkok, I think you've added the text in good faith, but I want to put this request on your radar and I'm hoping you'll agree a minor rewording might help make this text more accurate. I'm happy to address any questions or concerns here or on my user Talk page. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok I have changed the text, please have a look. --Ysangkok (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Potential expansion

@Avatar317: To avoid WP:CRYSTAL, I have agreed to remove the info I added about lobbying, with the following criteria for inclusion applying:

• Official announcement by Waymo
• Evidence of Waymo testing cars, applying for operating permits (mere lobbying/advocacy doesn't count)
• Reliable third-party source with an entire article (not just a blurb) on potential Waymo expansion

But I'm on the fence about Oregon, since Waymo has actually testified before a legislative committee; it's a step up from lobbying, but it doesn't fulfill any of the criteria above. Numberguy6 (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Blow by blow details

In order to justify the tag, I will leave the expected explanation here This is not a report or an analysis on Waymo, it's an encyclopedia. Blow-by-blow, location-by-location, details on expansion progress is overly detailed. It should summarize, without engaging in original research or WP:SYNTHESIS. Graywalls (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Lobbying activity

Potential sources

• https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/waymo-doubled-lobbying-in-san-francisco-as-it-eyes-airport/article_391d45bc-d9af-11ef-9622-cf08dc3d2e70.html Graywalls (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

potential source

I'm taking notes of sources as I come across so the article can be expanded around what sources say rather than corporate approach of finding sources around their narrative.

• power outage situation https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/daniel-lurie-waymo-blackouts-pge-21282099.php
• ethics complaints by union leaders https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/waymo-ethics-complaint-teamsters-sfo-20149956.php Graywalls (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)