Let’s Talk about the North Face Defacing Wikipedia

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.

Funny that now someone can update the North Face wiki entry with the &quot;Wikipedia Incident&quot; paragraph...hahahah death by a thousand cuts? Edit: lol already live [1][2]<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#The_North_Face" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Conflict-of-interest_editing...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;The_North_Face#Controversies" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;The_North_Face#Controversies</a>

Here you can see some of the images they uploaded: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;commons.wikimedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Category:The_North_Face_Wikipedia_advertising_campaign" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;commons.wikimedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Category:The_North_Face_W...</a><p>There are at least two ongoing community discussions about the incident:<p>- <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;commons.wikimedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Commons:Deletion_requests&#x2F;Files_uploaded_by_User:Fhpatucci" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;commons.wikimedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Commons:Deletion_requests...</a><p>- <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&#x2F;Incidents#User_Gmortaia_vandalizing_pages_with_guerrilla_advertising" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no...</a>

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

Very disappointing that they did this. Apparently AdAge posted a video bragging about what they did, which is how Wikipedia caught on.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;adage.com&#x2F;creativity&#x2F;work&#x2F;north-face-top-imagens&#x2F;2174261" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;adage.com&#x2F;creativity&#x2F;work&#x2F;north-face-top-imagens&#x2F;217...</a><p>Warning: page requires Javascript and even with an adblocker, it connects to nearly 30 tracking and ad domains.

Man, that&#x27;s really disappointing to read. I&#x27;m a fan of North Face gear. With that said, this will definitely push me towards their competitors like Patagonia and Arcteryx.<p>No doubt that there will be some sort of apology incoming from the CEO, but in reality the damage has been done.

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.

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.

Wikimedia is right. We should be angry. And I am. I&#x27;ll never buy anything North Face as a result of this.

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.<p>Manipulating Wikipedia for the goal, is the opposite of wonderful, it is distasteful. :&#x2F;

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.

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&#x27;t wait to score some Patagonia gear for summer hiking :)

Does North Face understand the image licencing here?<p>I can take every single one of their photos and caption it &quot;North Face sucks, buy Patagonia&quot; or whatever I like, and then republish it, and NF can&#x27;t do anything about it so long as I give attribution.

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

Maybe Wikimedia will lambaste the Israeli Ministry of Foreign and Strategic Affairs for also &quot;defacing&quot; Wikipedia? That is, &quot;unethically manipulating&quot; (Wikimedia&#x27;s words) the site to provide a Zionist friendly narrative of the conflict with the Palestinians. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;israelpalestinenews.org&#x2F;israel-partisans-work-censor-internet&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;israelpalestinenews.org&#x2F;israel-partisans-work-censor...</a><p>Of course this wont happen since the site&#x27;s founder Jimmy Wales recently won a $1 million Israeli prize and is not a neutral voice himself. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mondoweiss.net&#x2F;2018&#x2F;08&#x2F;wikipedia-suggests-antisemite&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mondoweiss.net&#x2F;2018&#x2F;08&#x2F;wikipedia-suggests-antisemite...</a><p>State actors and corporations have been infiltrating Wikipedia for ages. That Wikimedia pretends it doesn&#x27;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.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wikipedia.fivefilters.org&#x2F;agenda.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;wikipedia.fivefilters.org&#x2F;agenda.html</a>

The North Face has a storied history of abusing every law or process in the books to &quot;defend&quot; its brand, and this is just a continuation of it. They also make utter crap for consumers. I&#x27;ve been happier with Arcteryx or REI&#x27;s own brand of apparel.

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

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

The thing is, they probably would&#x27;ve got away with it except for the triumphal video talking about it!

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

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