9 ms·

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 defa

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?

chungy 7y ago
Wikipedia and Wikimedia have a heavy preference for landscape photos without people in them. Not that they're totally against it, but it still runs against the norm. The photos were uploaded as CC BY-SA, which I think is probably a silver lining, even though the deletion nominations often talk about blurring or removing the trademarked logo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:The_North_Face_Wikipedia_advertising_campaign https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:The_North_Face_W...
- logicallee 7y ago
  if there's a heavy preference for not having people, why were the replacements kept by the original editors? (why did they stick). Does Wikipedia have a policy on logos in photos in general? There is a ton of stuff companies could do that include their brand in an incidental way. Here is the article on kidney stones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidney_stone_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidney_stone_disease imagine a medical supply company took an objectively much better photo but had its logo in tiny letters somewhere on the tape measure or a beaker or something. seems to me a fair trade, it's pretty hard to take stunning photos and there are lots of subjects that don't have it. as long as it's just a few pixels and passes a normal human filter (it's better than what it replaced) I am just not seeing the huge harm. if the after picture was worse, it should get shown in this outrage article.
  - detaro 7y ago
    Companies could also just provide good photos under open licenses above board. Sure, no guarantee your pictures will get taken, and the marketing agency doesn't get to talk how cleverly they avoided getting caught by Wikipedia editors, but that's the kind of thing that makes people unhappy about your contributions.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
  - dave5104 7y ago
    > 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? I think the key difference is that the hypothetical medical supply company produces the products that the article you're talking about is written about. I'm fine with seeing Coca-Cola logos on the Wikipedia article about Coca-Cola. The North Face, however, does not own the national parks and scenic locales from the articles they defaced. They were not adding professionally shot photos to articles about North Face products.
    - logicallee 7y ago
      I meant in a wikipedia page about something medical, such as kidney stones, say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidney_stone_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidney_stone_disease (I don't think that picture is the best ever.) not on a page that's related to them or their equipment. What do you think about such a scenario, if the logo is small?
codedokode 7y ago
People are not nesessary in those photos. They are obstructing the view.

chungy 7y ago

Wikipedia and Wikimedia have a heavy preference for landscape photos without people in them. Not that they're totally against it, but it still runs against the norm. The photos were uploaded as CC BY-SA, which I think is probably a silver lining, even though the deletion nominations often talk about blurring or removing the trademarked logo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:The_North_Face_Wikipedia_advertising_campaign https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:The_North_Face_W...

logicallee 7y ago
if there's a heavy preference for not having people, why were the replacements kept by the original editors? (why did they stick). Does Wikipedia have a policy on logos in photos in general? There is a ton of stuff companies could do that include their brand in an incidental way. Here is the article on kidney stones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidney_stone_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidney_stone_disease imagine a medical supply company took an objectively much better photo but had its logo in tiny letters somewhere on the tape measure or a beaker or something. seems to me a fair trade, it's pretty hard to take stunning photos and there are lots of subjects that don't have it. as long as it's just a few pixels and passes a normal human filter (it's better than what it replaced) I am just not seeing the huge harm. if the after picture was worse, it should get shown in this outrage article.
- detaro 7y ago
  Companies could also just provide good photos under open licenses above board. Sure, no guarantee your pictures will get taken, and the marketing agency doesn't get to talk how cleverly they avoided getting caught by Wikipedia editors, but that's the kind of thing that makes people unhappy about your contributions.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

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 7y ago
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.
- dave5104 7y ago
  > 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? I think the key difference is that the hypothetical medical supply company produces the products that the article you're talking about is written about. I'm fine with seeing Coca-Cola logos on the Wikipedia article about Coca-Cola. The North Face, however, does not own the national parks and scenic locales from the articles they defaced. They were not adding professionally shot photos to articles about North Face products.
  - logicallee 7y ago
    I meant in a wikipedia page about something medical, such as kidney stones, say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidney_stone_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidney_stone_disease (I don't think that picture is the best ever.) not on a page that's related to them or their equipment. What do you think about such a scenario, if the logo is small?

codedokode 7y ago

People are not nesessary in those photos. They are obstructing the view.