Talk:Insta360

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Insta360 Flow.png
• Insta360 GO2.jpg
• Insta360 Link.jpg
• Insta360 ONE X2.jpg
• Insta360 Sphere.jpg
• Insta360 X3.png

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This is pure uncritical rehash of company marketing.

Obviously this is not a neutral article, but rather a lengthy advert for the Insta360 line. forestflyer (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

AI use

The entire last paragraph at least appears to be written by chatgpt. Kadermonkey the monkey (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

New "Controversy" section and general cleanup

Hi everyone,

Just a heads-up, I've added a new "Controversy" section to the page. The article felt pretty one-sided and seemed to be missing some well-publicized issues, so I added it to help with the article's neutrality (WP:NPOV).

The information isn't original research; it's all sourced from major publications like Newsweek, Tom's Guide, and PetaPixel, so everything is easily verifiable. I wanted to put the sources on the Talk page here just in case anyone questions the addition or considers reverting it. The information seems solid and pretty important for a balanced article.

On a related note, the whole article reads a bit like a press release. There's a lot of promotional language that probably violates WP:NOTPROMO and uses some peacock terms. I plan on doing some editing in the near future to clean this up and make it sound more like an encyclopedia entry.

Finally, just for full transparency and to address WP:COI, I want to be upfront: I was an authorized distributor for Insta360 in India before the COVID lockdowns. I have no connection or business with them anymore and haven't for years. My past experience is actually why the promotional slant of the article jumped out at me so much. I'm just here as a volunteer trying to help get this page to a more neutral place.

Cheers,

Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Just be wary it's not a proven offence. Just "concerns" that something illegal could possibly occur. There's an important distinction between a substantiated controversy and unverified risk claim. I would prefer to rename the chapter as security concerns to be more precise however it seems standard practise to just call it controversy so I retained that title. I have made edits to chapter to attribute the claims clearly and include specific details, as this helps readers understand the issue more accurately.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Request to remove promotional tag

Hello fellow editors,

The page no longer looks like a brochure.

I would like to propose the removal of the

tag from this article. Over the past several hours, I have performed a major overhaul to address the issues of promotional language, bias, and weak sourcing.

The key improvements include: Neutral Tone: The "History" and "Product lines" sections have been completely rewritten to remove promotional language and peacock terms, adhering to WP:NPOV.

Removed Product Catalog: The "Product lines" section was condensed from a long, promotional list into a proper encyclopedic summary of the company's main product categories, in line with WP:NOTCATALOG.

Addressed Bias by Omission: A fully-sourced "Controversy" section was added to provide a balanced view of the company, covering significant public criticisms.

Improved Sourcing: All weak, primary, and unreliable sources (like company blogs and Reddit) have been replaced with reliable, secondary sources from major tech publications. All sources are now active and verified.

Improved Lead: The lead section has been expanded to properly summarize the entire article, including the controversies.

I believe the article now meets Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and is no longer promotional. I invite other editors to review the recent changes and share their thoughts on removing the tag.

Thank you, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Looking at article now, it give a plain detached explanation of the company and its products. There's no commercial tone like saying it's amazing or you will feel so happy with the devices. So I agree there's no real reason to retain the tag. However I have to point out when you go to similar tech brand articles like GoPro, it's fine to mention partnerships with athletic sponsorship as that's encyclopaedic history and not automatically promotional. It's also fine to point out GoPro is widely used for adventure sports, travel recording, and outdoor activities. The irony is that this article swung too far into the opposite extreme, removing even useful context and leaving the description now somewhat overly stripped of the normal, informative usage framing. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2026 (UTC)