This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Apps Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of apps on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AppsWikipedia:WikiProject AppsTemplate:WikiProject Appsapps Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Contribute to the project: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Good article nominations : Improve Application software, Facebook and Instagram to good article status Stubs : Category:Mobile game stubs, Category:Stub-Class apps articles Companies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments

The user in question identified as an intern for Ibotta -- I will clean up so it remains neutral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IboughtaDEN (talk • contribs) 20:29, August 8, 2016 (UTC)

There are four different users with a clear COI; two of them have identified as employees of Ibotta (yourself being one of them - thank you for complying with Wikipedia's policies by being open about your affiliation!) Please do not remove the COI tag even if you attempt to clean up the article. Since there are so many accounts involved (a fifth, now, a brand new account which probably tried to remove the COI tag as their first edit but only removed part of it), it is important that an editor who is completely unconnected to the company makes that call. It's no big deal and there is no deadline. --bonadea contributions talk 20:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-- I'll make sure the intern doesn't adjust it at all and let the cards fall where they lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IboughtaDEN (talk • contribs) 20:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first time writing Wikipedia. Sorry! Feel free to remove any overly PR like content!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foreverfilm89 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can someone non-related to Ibotta please edit/check references in the next few days? Having a solid wikipedia page really helps with hiring and I want to make sure it complies. I believe I already updated all citations to non-press release and verifiable secondary/media sources. It'd be a huge help. I just want to make sure we comply! Also, once done if you can help remove the banners that would be amazing, but only if you feel you've hit all the right points! IboughtaDEN (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me review.Patbreckf (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to remove the request edit if I think I sufficiently addressed the request?Patbreckf (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patbreckf (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, User:Patbreckf. It is often a good idea for brand new editors to avoid removing maintenance tags especially concerning neutrality and COI; a company representative disclosed above that the article is intended as a marketing tool for hiring staff, which is completely against the purpose of Wikipedia, and the article has a problematic history with several undisclosed as well as disclosed COI editors. There are still inappropriate sources in the article, and again, as a new editor you can't be expected to know exactly what the policies on sources say, and while your clean-up efforts are appreciated it might have been good to leave the maintenance tags on. You state on your user page that editing this article and one other is your purpose for being on Wikipedia - how did you even find this article on your first day here? --bonadea contributions talk 07:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've had a look at the article and quite frankly, it needs a lot of work to see which sources meet Wikipedia's policy for reliable sources, which are primary (quite a few of them as far as I can see - anything based on a press release or an interview with the founder counts as a primary source), and to clean out inappropriate buzzwords and marketingspeak (it still talks about "opportunities" and "brand engagement", for instance). Since the article has mostly been worked on by COI editors and the subsequent edits have changed very little, a COI review by an unaffiliated and experienced editor would still be a good idea, I believe, and I don't think I'm the person to do it, so I'll restore the relevant tags. Again, there is absolutely no deadline and it's important that issues like these are resolved thoroughly. --bonadea contributions talk 08:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea Unaffiliated editor here (do I dare call myself experienced?) I heavily trimmed the article, which included removing most of the notable dates section. Rationale: it would overkill to include every single instance where Ibotta partnered with a new retailer or was tangentially mentioned in a report. The buzzwords are gone, thanks to an IP editor. What do you think of the article as it stands now? I hope my edits have been improvements. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now. I believe the issue with buzzwords and primary sources to have been fixed, so I have removed the 2 relevant tags. Regards, VB00 (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I work at a PriceRite supermarket in Connecticut; it is the "discount division" of ShopRite (both chains are within 2 miles or so in my town.) Recently I noticed an Ibotta poster on the PriceRite front window; I was surprised to see the age restriction. I tried to ask why this is so since PriceRite, at least in CT, does not sell age-restricted products. I see some sort of legal action in the future: some shoppers have no intention of purchasing alcoholic beverages even in stores that offer them. 50.79.178.157 (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working to remove the promotional content on the page and the only external link is the company website. I am going to remove the template since the sourcing and language align with Wikipedia Guidelines. Please talk here instead of just putting the template back on the page so we can discuss what additional edits may be necessary. Thanks Wiki editors!! Haylsyeahh (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads as puffery. It is largely promotional in nature. Especially when considering the page's history of conflicts of interest, I believe it should be moved to a draft, reduced in scope, or otherwise modified to avoid the use of Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle. I would like to trim this article down and/or remove the promotional language, but would like the ensure community alignment in doing so. Terareconinc (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're coming across as someone who has a conflict of interest aligned against iBotta. Therefore, it would be better if you were to propose edit requests on this talkpage and let someone else decide if they're worth making. Unfortunately, the edit request system doesn't quite fit this model, but we can see if we can make it work. (I was going to see if I could give you an example below, but someone did a lot of work making sure that this article was well-sourced, so there's nothing obvious to remove.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message and work on this article. I understand what you are saying. It is difficult if not impossible in this medium for me to dispute that, but I will state for whatever it is worth that this is not the case. I have no connection materially or otherwise to this company. I hope that my adherence to the guidelines and contributions can stand on their own merit. But I am happy to proceed in the “talk” section if you feel that is best. I see the work done and appreciate that. My goal on the whole is to just represent a more balanced and neutral perspective overall. Terareconinc (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, Looking through the article, there are a few sections that don’t really work well from an NPOV perspective. A lot of the growth metrics and campaign details feel like they’ve been pulled straight from company press materials, which starts to drift into advertising. A few examples that stand out: -The office expansion details in 2016–2017 (“40,000-square-foot office,” “had to expand to a second floor”). This is the kind of corporate trivia that usually doesn’t merit inclusion unless it was independently covered as notable. -The 2018–2019 stats (“30 million downloads,” “$500 million in cash back,” “largest mobile company in Colorado”) sound like self-reported milestones. Unless there’s strong third-party reporting, this looks like puffery. -The tree-planting and “Here to Help” pandemic campaign. Again, unless written up by reliable sources as something noteworthy in its own right, this reads like CSR marketing. “10 million Thanksgiving meals” in 2022 is another corporate talking point. -The line about the Ibotta Performance Network “reaching over 200 million consumers” is textbook promotional phrasing. -Sponsorships (Pelicans patch, Logan Sargeant helmet, Nuggets jersey, etc.) probably don’t need to be listed in this much detail. If there’s real secondary coverage, it can be summarized briefly.

I’d suggest trimming these or rephrasing with proper attribution. The idea isn’t to erase sourced history but to avoid giving undue weight to what are basically marketing claims. That way the article reads more like an encyclopedia and less like a press kit. Terareconinc (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]