Some people here think Wikimedia Foundation's mission is to keep Wikipedia up. That's a subset of their mission. I attribute nearly all of the blame to WMF, because their donation ads are quite deceptive.

The actual, public mission of Wikimedia Foundation:

> The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

As such, WMF spends a lot money (combined) on a splatter of projects, like funding photographers to go to events like Fifa World Cup and Cannes, and take (CC or public domain) portraits for Wikimedia Commons (https://www.wikiportraits.org); etc.

> WMF spends a lot money (combined) on a splatter of projects

According to [0], they intend to spend $18m on community projects total, out of their total $240m FY26-27 budget[1]. $330k of that go to the WikiPortraits project[2].

Almost half of their expenses still go into "keeping Wikipedia up" (+ it's companion projects). I would hardly call that deceptive.

[0]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Regions#Wikimedia_Com...

[1]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_...

[2]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Co...

That is why I always say: Don't donate to wikipedia, donate to archive.org

That's pretty cool and worthy endeavor. Having public domain pictures of cultural events seems like a worthy cause IMO.

WikiPortraits organizer here. To give a sense of scope of project, at this point more than 1 out of every 50 pageviews on Wikipedia globally is illustrated with a WikiPortraits photo (and maybe more, we are still trying to digest what the surge from World Cup traffic means). Since our project started in January 2024, WikiPortraits photos have been viewed 5.8 billion times (https://sightglass.toolforge.org/results/iAi_KYlZs8ZXW9Xc/wi...). Of those, the ones I’m most proud of is finding a volunteer in Rome to take openly licensed pictures of the new Pope Leo XIV in May 2025 (Since all the commercial agencies and news outlets photos of Habemus Papum moment were not openly licensed, we did not have a “Pope as Pope” photo for Wikipedia, only older meh photos of him as a Bishop in Peru).

Those new Pope photos, which were featured on the front page of many language Wikipedias, were viewed 50+ million times in their first month (nice feeling for a first time photographer!)

WikiPortraits photos are CC-BY-SA, which means other (mostly smaller) media outlets can use with attribution (though we’ve seen them mangle that in all sorts of ways, but they are trying). These are generally orgs that cannot afford Getty or other agencies, though we have seen a WikiPortraits photo pop up at CNN Brasil. Fan Instagram accounts also like us.

I personally think it makes the wiki experience more pleasant to have better photos. Here are some before/after: https://commons.gallery/@quirky/beforeafter

Even with the grants, WikiPortraits photographers are all volunteers. It’s what they do in their leisure time. (A number are professional photographers but they are donating their time to this project, or theg donate older photos they took on assignment where they control the rights).

The main FIFA World Cup photographer is a Brooklyn high school teacher by day (also a comedian by night). His World Cup photos have been viewed 500 million times (“what I did l on my summer break”). Wikiphotography, like much of wiki, depends on a base of supercontributors.

Where does the funding go to make educational open content?

WikiPortraits pays for lodging, buying better equipment to lend folks (eg longer lenses so photos are not as grainy), a LOT of parking fee reimbursements, a meal if someone has been shooting for a long day. We also pay honoraria for experienced wiki folks to create Wikidata items or Commons categories behind photogs where necessary (Taking photos fun! Metadata not so fun).

But WikiPortraits travel is generally a mix of people getting there themselves, using airline miles, and external donations (eg not funding from WMF. Some limited exceptions, but we’ve tried to keep that line pretty clear). We used American Airlines miles to get the World Cup photographer to Seattle for that Round of 16 game of US vs Belgium. Wiki ethos vibe.

It’s easy to emphasize glamorous World Cup coverage (which gave us huge stats!). But a lot of the events photographed are things like AAAS and other academic conference, local book festivals, politicians at an event in Adelaide, Indian artists at a fair in Santa Fe. Volunteers grinding away to fill out wiki coverage in areas they are passionate about.

What’s nice is at a time when new editor registrations are declining precipitously (LLMs?), photography has brought in a lot of new volunteers to the Wikiverse. Also it’s a noticeably different population. We are half female vs 15% female for wiki overall, and a lot more diverse, especially in the US (where Black Wikipedians are only .5-1.5% of the Wiki volunteer community). Photography is a fairly immediate high-impact, low-friction way to improve Wikipedia.

LLMs may be able generate a text article. But they don’t (currently) have the ability to rally a community of photographers to go live events and take openly licensed photos for the world.

Also what we appreciate, methodically covering events helps us find coverage gaps on wiki. We just covered a rodeo in Sheridan, Wyoming. The rodeo, despite being around since 1930s, did not have an article. Also more surprising, no article (or Wikidata item) for Indian Relay, a popular Native American horse racing sport where riders go bareback from horse to horse. It’s amazing to watch. Highly recommend. I spent a lot of creating wikidata items and articles for the teams, lead riders and tournaments just so we could match our photos to wiki. Contemporary art, as we discovered with the 2026 Venice Biennale, also has huge gaps of on wiki coverage.

I’m willing to bet that dollar for dollar WikiPortraits may be some of the most effective community grants WMF has given in terms of on-wiki impact. One reason: you can take a single photo and it’s used in 200 wikis.

Remember the WMF doesn’t get involved in editorial content. So the community grants help spur organized efforts like ours to help improve on-wiki content.

We are looking for more volunteers! (Also if you have excess airline miles/hotel points you want to contribute for a good cause).

So donating to Wikipedia actually funds commercial events? wtf.