Talk:IBOT

I've reverted to a very early version since the whole article was a copy and paste from independencenow.com and therefore violating Copyrights. Angela. 05:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

History? Development?
The article starts by saying that as of 2009 it is discontinued. I guess that means that at one time it was manufactured, but the article doesn't have any information on that. When did it debut? When was it first put on sale? -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Name style
This article does not agree on how to style the name of the product.


 * IBOT - All caps - the page name


 * iBOT - lowercase i, capital BOT - title and first usage


 * iBot - only capital B - used elsewhere in the article

Does anyone know how the product is meant to be stylised so as to bring some uniformity to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.163.177 (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The article title is accurate as "iBOT". Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on IBOT. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217222556/http://www.ibotnow.com/ to http://www.ibotnow.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213224446/http://huey091foundation.org/ to http://www.huey091foundation.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Major update
I want to start by apologizing for editing this page when I have a clear COI (I work for Mobius Mobility). I’m well aware that this is strongly discouraged; sorry for taking liberties with the process. But please hear me out before reverting stuff… I’m an avid Wikipedia reader, and my edits here were a personal project and good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Let me step you through every edit that I made, with its justification:

·     In the lead, expanded the summary of what the device is beyond simply “powered wheelchair”, which I did not think adequately summarized the contents of the article. I think my tone is acceptable, but if anyone disagrees, please edit.

·     In the lead, expanded the summary of history of the device to include the current manufacturer and to specify what years the device was in production. This is to ensure that this is up-to-date and to adequately summarize the history portion of the article.

·     Added a Description section with a high-level description of the device and its core functionality. It did not make sense to me for the article to launch into history of the device without first stating what the device is. The new Description section supersedes the old Features section that was at the end of the article; that section read like an advertisement, had an excessive amount of detail, and lacked good citations. I’m confident that the new section is a big improvement, but if anyone thinks that the tone or level of detail could be improved still further, please make edits!

·     Broke up the History section with subheadings to clearly lay out the different phases of the history.

·     Substantially condensed the first History paragraph. This content did not cite any sources, and most of it seemed too trivial to me to be worth tracking down good sources. I added citations for the parts of this that I kept.

·     Removed the statement about when the iBOT entered clinical trials. The sources I’ve seen disagree on what year this was, and it didn’t seem like an important enough fact to be worth sorting through the discrepancies.

·     Added that initial device clearance was as Class III. This is an important fact to understand the later history.

·     Rearranged the paragraph talking about relationship to Segway PT for readability and to lead with the most notable fact. Also, removed the quote about “Fred Upstairs” from the references section and instead worked that information directly into this paragraph, so that that story is in one place.

·     Added information about when the iBOT 3000 entered production. Article previously jumped straight to the iBOT 4000.

·     Elaborated on the issues the iBOT 3000 and 4000 had with sales. The FDA classification is an important aspect in addition to cost. Removed the specific reference to insurance reimbursing $5000; the cited New Mobility article indicates that some people received more insurance coverage than others, so this stat appears to be an oversimplification.

·     Added better citation (secondary source) for iBOT 4000 being discontinued in 2009.

·     Removed information about when service was discontinued for the iBOT 4000, about efforts in 2011 to reinstate production, and about when Kamen as of 2014 expected the new version to launch. It did not seem to me that this content would have any interest/value to a present-day reader. If others disagree, add it back in.

·     Removed information about 2016 partnership with Toyota. This partnership was not long-lived, and I think the article is confusing if it talks about the start of the partnership but not the end. I couldn’t find good sources about the end of the partnership. If anyone else can find a way to tell the whole story, please do so! Can you leverage something like “Sources from 2019 on no longer indicate that Toyota is involved with the iBOT”? That seems like interpretation of sources to me, and therefore original research, and so I did not feel comfortable pursuing that, but what do others think?

·     Added citations to paragraph about launch of iBOT PMD and cleaned up wording to read less like an advertisement.

·     Added paragraph about iBOT PMD regulatory product codes. If I’m the only person interested in this, cut it back out again!

·     Updated the official website link to point to the current manufacturer

·     Removed the Toyota category from the article (see Toyota discussion above)

·     Elaborated on the photo caption to speak more to the iBOT

·     Removed the disputed neutrality flag. There was nothing on the talk page elaborating on what was disputed. My assumption is that the editor who put that there meant to flag it as “Reads like an advertisement”, because it certainly did. If anyone thinks that, after my edits, there are remaining issues with either advertisement-like wording or neutrality, please either re-flag the article (with an explanation), or fix the problem!

Thank you! DLSteffens (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)