
Let’s Talk about the North Face Defacing Wikipedia - ericzawo
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/05/29/lets-talk-about-the-north-face-defacing-wikipedia/
======
glup
The AdAge video is completely infuriating — it has this completely
triumphalist tone celebrating the "cleverness" of the marketing campaign. As
if it were a "hack" rather than an unethical and distasteful idea unbefitting
an ad agency. North Face would do well to part with Leo Burnett Tailor Made.

~~~
logicallee
I might get heavily downvoted for this one but so be it:

I was curious why this article we're discussing doesn't show the after
pictures, since it's about defacing. (The picture at the top is the one that
was replaced - so we only see the before pic.)

From the video, it seems because the after pictures are beautiful and way
better, which I'd guess is why the real volunteer Wikipedia editors kept them
rather than reverting them and why it was so successful. They do show a tiny
logo incidentally as part of travel gear that is in the photo but other than
this it seems the photos are way better. It's not like the logo takes up more
than a few pixels.

Any counterexamples? (A photo that was worse than the one it replaced)? If not
I think I can't agree with the word "deface". Maybe if the brand placement
were more conspicuous or damaging to the photo -- but the ones I saw honestly
seemed fine to me and seemed like an improvement.

"we improved wikipedia with fantastic royalty-free images of popular
destinations, taken with travelers who were also wearing our gear" seems like
an alternative way to phrase what happened. then we wouldn't be talking about
it.

I'm happy to be proven wrong if someone can show a before/after example that
wasn't an improvement. Any examples?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
When I'm interested in a national park or landscape, I'd prefer to see a
landscape, not someone posing in front of a landscape. That _in itself_ makes
it worse to my mind.

If Wikipedia were to let that pass, we could "look forward" to product
placement attempts in every damn photo on the site.

Few pixels it may be, but it's a line that's important not to cross. Ever.

~~~
logicallee
I don't know man. A ton of companies clearly edit their own articles and it's
often fine for me for information purposes. If it's true that one of the main
reasons to check these pages out is for tourism ideas then these better,
professionally-shot results are really hard for me to get outraged about.

If a medical supply company replaced medical article photos with much better
versions but which showed their logos in a few pixels on some equipment, would
this be unacceptable for you?

For me the production value would probably be worth it.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
How can I sensibly choose if to do business with someone if I am only getting
positive spin? When I see a page that's clearly been sanitised I try and
dismiss it completely - and often the firm with it. Or go hunting for balance
- which might be hugely counter productive for my overall view of the company
if I land up on a complaints site.

Of the "landscapes", take the image of the woman in black in dead centre of
shot - it's _terribly_ framed unless you just wanted a photo of your wife's
ass. For deciding if I'd like to visit the region the only thought is "get out
of the damn way". The orange tent in corner of landscape? Crop that shit out
and have a decent landscape shot. Better still, get a photographer bright
enough to take 3 steps left first.

The production value is solely of product placement not landscape photography,
suited only for their website. Now then, if North Face had paid a renowned
landscape photographer to take some excellent photos for Wikipedia it could
become well known with no logo or product in sight. Positive PR, and probably
a note on North Face's page for genuine production values. Except that's no
longer an advertising campaign.

What did North Face achieve? Made sure I buy Patagonia, or Jack Wolfskin etc
next time I'm buying outdoor gear - which I do fairly regularly.

~~~
logicallee
If the shots were distracting or not appropriate for the pages, do you know
why the changes didn't get reverted?

~~~
tom_mellior
You have tried to make this argument several times. Do you actually think that
a committee of editors carefully reviews every single change made to
Wikipedia? That is not the case.

~~~
logicallee
yes, I think that editors on most pages act like little lords and ladies over
what they view as their property and instantly revert anything from outsiders
that doesn't fit with their conception or isn't a clear improvement. (This has
been my experience). sorry, that was my experience.

~~~
geezerjay
You're presenting a personal pov that's grossly hyperbolic even in its
subjectivity and does not reflect reality. With the exception of a hand-full
of highly sensible topics that are prone to brigading, such as political
issues, most articles barely receive any edit and are far from being
monitored. Articles that are particularly vulnerable are articles on
geography-related topics from nations that don't have a strong wikipedia
presence.

~~~
DanBC
I mean, it's not that hyperbolic. Wikipedia is a highly toxic place for many
people. Even the foundation appreciates this.

------
orliesaurus
Funny that now someone can update the North Face wiki entry with the
"Wikipedia Incident" paragraph...hahahah death by a thousand cuts? Edit: lol
already live [1][2]

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-
interest_editing...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-
interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#The_North_Face)

[2]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_North_Face#Controversies](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_North_Face#Controversies)

~~~
village-idiot
It turns out that Wikipedia is a _really_ bad organization to piss off.

------
ignoranceprior
Here you can see some of the images they uploaded:
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:The_North_Face_W...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:The_North_Face_Wikipedia_advertising_campaign)

There are at least two ongoing community discussions about the incident:

\-
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_User:Fhpatucci)

\-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Gmortaia_vandalizing_pages_with_guerrilla_advertising)

~~~
chaostheory
Most of the pictures are fine i.e. you can't really see the North Face logos.
A few of them though are just really terrible and don't belong on Wikipedia.

~~~
ignoranceprior
A few of the images don't even contain the logo at all (AFAICT). Maybe those
were uploaded as distractions so it didn't look like a single-purpose
advertising account.

~~~
RobLach
That’s exactly it

------
codedokode
This is just vandalism. It is like painting your ad illegally on the walls of
buildings and boasting that you invented a "smart trick" to get your ad placed
for free.

------
eindiran
Very disappointing that they did this. Apparently AdAge posted a video
bragging about what they did, which is how Wikipedia caught on.

[https://adage.com/creativity/work/north-face-top-
imagens/217...](https://adage.com/creativity/work/north-face-top-
imagens/2174261)

Warning: page requires Javascript and even with an adblocker, it connects to
nearly 30 tracking and ad domains.

~~~
ziddoap
>Warning: page requires Javascript and even with an adblocker, it connects to
nearly 30 tracking and ad domains.

Color me not surprised. Shady in one area, shady in other areas.

Thanks for the heads up.

~~~
smsm42
TBH, most major companies, especially media ones, do this nowdays. I was used
to be surprised when adblocker counts 20+ blocked entities on the page (and
that's not counting second and third level ones that would be loaded by
blocked ones!) but now it's just routine.

------
eljimmy
Man, that's really disappointing to read. I'm a fan of North Face gear. With
that said, this will definitely push me towards their competitors like
Patagonia and Arcteryx.

No doubt that there will be some sort of apology incoming from the CEO, but in
reality the damage has been done.

~~~
mdolon
Sorry to hear that. I can't speak about Arcteryx but I've been a long time
customer of Patagonia and have only the absolute best things to say about
them. Their products are expensive but they back them with lifetime
guarantees. I had a $400 Gore-tex jacket that after two years of use, started
letting water in at the seams. I took it to a Patagonia store and told the
clerk, who gave me a free bottle of a liquid wash that helps restore water
repellency. When that didn't work, I returned to the store and the clerk
apologized, took the jacket and told me to grab a new one off the shelf.

I've had other friends get replacement gear years down the road, and have also
had down jackets get repaired by them for free after regular wear and tear.
It's those little things, along with their support for environmental causes,
that have made me a lifelong customer.

~~~
blacksmith_tb
I tend to think well of both Arcteryx and Patagonia, but I'd also say that
their initial solve of using a DWR replenisher[1] for a jacket that was
leaking at the seams feels like a fairly lukewarm example of customer service
(then again, some places might have sold you the bottle too...)

1: [https://www.backcountry.com/explore/dwr-
decoded](https://www.backcountry.com/explore/dwr-decoded)

~~~
bradstewart
Arcteryx has phenomenal customer service as well. They mailed me a new jacket
in the middle of trip (picked it up at a Chilean post office as we moved to a
new mountain), and let me mail the original leaking one back a month later.

------
rsweeney21
This has to be one of the worst marketing ideas ever conceived of. What
consumer, in their right mind, would admire their efforts to put their brand
on wikimedia images? This is exactly how you should not do marketing.

~~~
Piskvorrr
Unless...unless this is a meta-advertisement - I would imagine this intent:
"Look, everybody is talking about our agency, see how good we are? [Never mind
that we achieved this by vandalizing Wikipedia _and_ by making our client look
bad]"

------
vr46
Let’s also talk about how terrible their clothes are, from material to
construction, and mainly exist as some kind of pyramid sandwich-board scheme
to sell more clothes rather than protect wearers from the elements.

~~~
village-idiot
North face is two companies under one logo.

One is a hardcore mountaineering company, who makes equipment where the owner
dies if it fails. Their tents and sleeping bags can be found in the most
inhospitable places on earth, including Everest.

The other makes fleece for college students.

------
ngngngng
Wikimedia is right. We should be angry. And I am. I'll never buy anything
North Face as a result of this.

------
chungy
The saddest part is that their photos could have easily just been used in an
innocuous ad campaign, showing wonderful photos and making sure their products
are in it.

Manipulating Wikipedia for the goal, is the opposite of wonderful, it is
distasteful. :/

------
heraclius
I hope that the terms can be re-written to impose some sort of liability on
anyone who tries this sort of thing. The only disincentive is the wrath of
editors and the foundation, which, frankly, doesn’t amount to much.

~~~
mjevans
They should require two things.

1) Label accounts with conflicts of interest if necessary.

Personal accounts that are only personal (and never used in an official
capacity for any other organization or entity).

"Professional" accounts for which one or more professional entities (potential
conflicts of interest) are disclosed.

2) All work should be submitted to the public domain, or as close to the
public domain as possible; and any fair use material clearly marked as such
and why. (I believe they already require this, I'm just not a Wikipedia
contributor so I've not read their specific guidelines.)

~~~
ignoranceprior
Your suggestions are already reflected in the existing Wikimedia Foundation
TOU:
[https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en](https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en)

1) It already prohibits paid editing without disclosure. (ctrl-F "Paid
contributions without disclosure" in link above)

2) Wikimedia projects require that almost all content be licensed under a free
license (ctrl-F "Licensing of Content" in link above). Specifically, text is
usually dual licensed under CC BY-SA and GFDL. Wikimedia Commons allows images
under any free license.
([https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing))

Exceptions are allowed for fair use content, which needs explicit
justification and may only be used sparingly (see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-
free_content_cri...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-
free_content_criteria) for the English Wikipedia's rules,
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-
free_content](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content) for other WMF
wikis).

~~~
mjevans
In that case shouldn't the headlines be about charges related to unauthorized
access of a computer system?

------
quxbar
I am a very big purchaser of frivolous outdoor clothing and gear, REI is like
a candy store to me. I will be boycotting The North Face for at least one year
starting today, because this is so obviously unethical. Can't wait to score
some Patagonia gear for summer hiking :)

------
DanBC
Does North Face understand the image licencing here?

I can take every single one of their photos and caption it "North Face sucks,
buy Patagonia" or whatever I like, and then republish it, and NF can't do
anything about it so long as I give attribution.

------
Timothycquinn
Thanks for the info. Now know to steer clear of NF.

------
bjourne
Maybe Wikimedia will lambaste the Israeli Ministry of Foreign and Strategic
Affairs for also "defacing" Wikipedia? That is, "unethically manipulating"
(Wikimedia's words) the site to provide a Zionist friendly narrative of the
conflict with the Palestinians. [https://israelpalestinenews.org/israel-
partisans-work-censor...](https://israelpalestinenews.org/israel-partisans-
work-censor-internet/)

Of course this wont happen since the site's founder Jimmy Wales recently won a
$1 million Israeli prize and is not a neutral voice himself.
[https://mondoweiss.net/2018/08/wikipedia-suggests-
antisemite...](https://mondoweiss.net/2018/08/wikipedia-suggests-antisemite/)

State actors and corporations have been infiltrating Wikipedia for ages. That
Wikimedia pretends it doesn't happen and that this The North Face incident was
unheard of is just dumbfounding. Paid editing is everywhere on Wikipedia,
believing otherwise is very naive.

[https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html](https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/agenda.html)

~~~
smsm42
Of course, we can't discuss North Face behavior without getting to the topic
of The Joos and their attempts to take over the world with their dirty money.
And of course since Israel recognized the achievement of Wales - who btw has
zero control over Wikipedia content - he is forever tainted and everything he
does is now part of the Jooish Conspiracy. Shameful.

> Paid editing is everywhere on Wikipedia, believing otherwise is very naive

If you spent about 10 minutes researching the topic, you'd know Wikipedia
community knows that, and has specific disclosure rules, templates and
requirements for acknowledging and disclosing paid editing and conflict of
interest. Nobody pretends it does not exist. Undisclosed paid editing (known
in Wikipedia community as UPE - use this to look it up) is what is prohibited
and would get one banned.

~~~
bjourne
Yup, I think state-sponsored editing of Wikipedia is shameful.

"In 2008 the pro-Israel activist group Committee for Accuracy in Middle East
Reporting in America (CAMERA) launched a campaign to alter Wikipedia articles
to support the Israeli side of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The campaign
suggested that pro-Israeli editors should pretend to be interested in other
topics until elected as administrators. Once administrators they were to
misuse their administrative powers to suppress pro-Palestinian editors and
support pro-Israel editors.[59] Some members of this conspiracy were banned by
Wikipedia administrators.[60]

In 2010 two pro-settler Israeli groups, Yesha Council and Israel Sheli,
launched courses to instruct pro-Israel editors on how to use Wikipedia to
promote Israel's point of view. A prize was to be given to the editor who
inserted the most pro-Israel changes.[61]"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-
interest_editing_o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-
interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#Israel)

"“Students work in four teams: Content, Wikipedia, Monitoring and New Media,”
according to the program description. It details the responsibilities for each
team:

The content team is responsible for creating original content in a news
format.

The monitoring team is responsible for “monitoring efforts while reporting and
removing anti-Semitic [sic] content from social networks in a variety of
languages.” (The program conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism; see
below.)

The New Media team is responsible for social media channels, “including
Facebook accounts in English, French and Portuguese, Twitter, YouTube
channels, and so on.”

The Wikipedia team is “responsible for writing new entries and translating
them into languages that operate in the program, updating the values of
current and relevant information, tracking and preventing bias in the
program’s areas of activity.”"

[https://mediareviewnet.com/2018/03/how-israel-and-its-
partis...](https://mediareviewnet.com/2018/03/how-israel-and-its-partisans-
work-to-censor-the-internet/)

Can't this be discussed without you invoking antisemitic tropes? If you think
these efforts have ceased because they happened a long time ago, then I have a
bridge to sell you. The only thing that has changed is that they have become
more covert. Possibly other state-sponsored actors have also infiltrated
Wikipedia so it is not just about Israel.

~~~
smsm42
> Yup, I think state-sponsored editing of Wikipedia is shameful.

You are free to think anything you like, but it makes no sense. Why state-
sponsored editing is worse that, say, Taliban-sponsored or Hamas-sponsored or
just-random-dudes-hating-jews-sponsored one?

> Can't this be discussed without you invoking antisemitic tropes?

Me invoking tropes? You came to a topic that has nothing to do with Israel and
started blaming The Joos and their dirty money, somehow presenting Israel
recognizing Wales - who, again, does not have editorial control over Wikipedia
- as something shady. I think you've made your bed.

> Possibly other state-sponsored actors have also infiltrated Wikipedia so it
> is not just about Israel.

You don't say!

~~~
bjourne
> You are free to think anything you like, but it makes no sense. Why state-
> sponsored editing is worse that, say, Taliban-sponsored or Hamas-sponsored
> or just-random-dudes-hating-jews-sponsored one?

Because being paid to advance a state's interests by editing Wikipedia is
morally wrong. Especially if you don't disclose that you are in a conflict of
interest situation and you instead pretend to be a normal user.

> Me invoking tropes? You came to a topic that has nothing to do with Israel
> and started blaming The Joos and their dirty money,

I did nothing of the sort and I think you look very foolish by pretending that
I did.

> somehow presenting Israel recognizing Wales - who, again, does not have
> editorial control over Wikipedia - as something shady.

Wales does have and exercises editorial control over Wikipedia. He has stepped
in in numerous disputes and imposed his will. He has used his powers to get
articles undeleted and reverted bans of users he thought were unfairly banned.
Yes, I think it is odd that the WMF has never criticized Israel or its
lobbying organizations for infiltrating Wikipedia, but The North Face's
amateurish attempt gets scorned. The reason must be Wales' political biases.

------
thrillgore
The North Face has a storied history of abusing every law or process in the
books to "defend" its brand, and this is just a continuation of it. They also
make utter crap for consumers. I've been happier with Arcteryx or REI's own
brand of apparel.

------
busymom0
I am really curious why would they even try this type of stunt? Like what were
they trying to prove?

~~~
EForEndeavour
Free advertising, not just for The North Face, but for the ad agency, Leo
Burnett Tailor Made, who I'd never heard of before. I hate them both now, but
the fact remains that they've forced their names into my awareness, and that
alone will attract work from large, out-of-touch companies.

------
dannykwells
Disgusting. To extent I can will transition out of NF gear. Will share broadly
to encourage others to do so.

------
shermozle
The thing is, they probably would've got away with it except for the triumphal
video talking about it!

------
5etho
How about banning north face from having site on wiki... Or just having this
article in it

~~~
jolmg
That would go against Wikipedia's mission. I think referencing this event in
their article as they've done is the correct response.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-
interest_editing...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-
interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#The_North_Face)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_North_Face#Controversies](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_North_Face#Controversies)

~~~
5etho
well, you're totally correct, just write this comment based on frustration :)

------
erikpukinskis
I’m obviously not in line with the tenor of this thread, but I really don’t
think it’s a big deal. People make edits. Other people revert them. The
outrage here seems silly. “Defacing” is hyperbole.

I remember when Hacker News was politically against the idea that Terms of
Service were in any way binding.

~~~
geezerjay
> I’m obviously not in line with the tenor of this thread, but I really don’t
> think it’s a big deal.

If this sort of abuse isn't nipped in the bud, it will only get worse and
become standard operating procedure for each and every single ad company, big
and small.

~~~
erikpukinskis
People could complain about low quality edits without clutching their pearls
over the idea that a marketing team would deign to edit anything.

~~~
geezerjay
If a marketing team wants to edit anything then let them put up their own blog
or website instead of abusing other people's service.

It's this sort of abuse that brought spam into the world and pretty much
destroyed fundamental services such as email and also usenet.

~~~
erikpukinskis
It’s just hard to take your concern seriously because I doubt you have spoken
out against the top spammers on Wikipedia, but you care about this one silly
project. But please correct me if I’m wrong and this is an issue you are
invested in.

~~~
geezerjay
You have no idea who I am so refrain from making up accusations and personal
attacks founded on your personal baseless assertions. If you have nothing of
value to add to the discussion, simply don't add noise or drama to the
discussion.

~~~
erikpukinskis
What personal attack? I expressed doubt and a willingness to be corrected. If
you can name another “vandal” party who you’ve spoken out against, or even
another party you are aware of then I will stand corrected.

