3 ms·

I could not find any indication that the purpose of this ever-increasing spending (while alarming) is money laundering in the essay you linked. Can you provide

by jmusall 2mo ago

I could not find any indication that the purpose of this ever-increasing spending (while alarming) is money laundering in the essay you linked. Can you provide any other source to back up this claim? Money laundering is illegal, while spending money in of itself is definitely not.

dannyw 2mo ago
I'm generally critical of WMF and think (1) they waste significant amount of resources on mis-managed projects, and (2) are not very honest or transparent in donation communications. But to play devils advocate, a lot of this depends on your views of what WMF should be. Some see WMF as "keep wikimedia sites up and healthy". But the foundation is much broader: > 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 an example, one of the hundreds of projects that WMF funds is the WikiPortraits Photo Service (https://photos.wikiportraits.org https://photos.wikiportraits.org). Take this with a huge grain of salt, but Sol found ~$500K of direct grants in the past 3yr; with 50k Creative Commons or public domain portraits taken as a result. Some people might be shocked at this, and feel scammed that some of their donation to WMF is funding photographer's hotels/flights/compensation to Cannes, Fifa World Cup, etc; instead of servers or infra or 'KOTL employees'. Others might think it's an incredibly great use of money; at just $10/photo; while contributing novel, high-quality, human-authored, freely licensed content to the world
- akolbe 2mo ago
  Yes, that is a good example. I used to be cynical about these uses of money until I met a 70-year-old volunteer who regularly attends international cycling championships to take pictures of the cyclists. She is totally devoted to documenting the sport and is not by any stretch of the imagination getting rich doing that or living in luxury. So I've changed my mind: her being able to do that is a good thing for her, for Wikipedia and for the sportspeople involved in these championships. YMMV.
- wildfireday2 2mo ago
  That $500K over three years represents 0.08% of the foundation’s budget in that time period. The question is, what are they spending the other 99.92%? There is a significant small chunk spent on crucial infrastructure, but it’s mostly a slush fund for board pet projects.
- Kayvanian 2mo ago
  WikiPortraits organizer here. That funding figure is through the end of 2027. I'd estimate ~$550k total from the WMF over 4 years (accounting for additional rapid grants and funding from affiliates). So looking at an overall average of ~$135k per year out of a ~$200 million budget to (so far in 2.5 years) engage 150+ photographers who have uploaded 90k+ photos from hundreds of events. Good downstream impact as well (developing better tools for Commons, bringing on more longterm contributors to both Commons and Wikipedia, etc.). Also want to highlight that WikiPortraits is not just covering the fancy events like FIFA and Cannes, but many more smaller and undercovered events as well (indigenous festivals, science conferences, literature festivals, and so on). World Cup coverage in particular was relatively very cheap for how high-visibility the photos are on Wikipedia (majority of matches were covered locally); we've put more towards getting wiki photographers in Benin, Ghana, and Kenya support to cover their local culture and events. For the amount of direct impact we have on Wikipedia and Commons, I'll go to bat to say that it's a good use of money compared to a good number of other projects that have received more funding over the years (ofc I have a conflict of interest here, but still). But I do get the larger point, that this sort of project is not necessarily what people expect when they donate to Wikimedia (and Cannes and FIFA of course stand out in the list of events being covered and are what people will focus on). And I've also been critical of the WMF's approach to donation comms for this reason.

by jmusall 2mo ago

dannyw 2mo ago

I'm generally critical of WMF and think (1) they waste significant amount of resources on mis-managed projects, and (2) are not very honest or transparent in donation communications. But to play devils advocate, a lot of this depends on your views of what WMF should be. Some see WMF as "keep wikimedia sites up and healthy". But the foundation is much broader: > 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 an example, one of the hundreds of projects that WMF funds is the WikiPortraits Photo Service (https://photos.wikiportraits.org https://photos.wikiportraits.org). Take this with a huge grain of salt, but Sol found ~$500K of direct grants in the past 3yr; with 50k Creative Commons or public domain portraits taken as a result. Some people might be shocked at this, and feel scammed that some of their donation to WMF is funding photographer's hotels/flights/compensation to Cannes, Fifa World Cup, etc; instead of servers or infra or 'KOTL employees'. Others might think it's an incredibly great use of money; at just $10/photo; while contributing novel, high-quality, human-authored, freely licensed content to the world

akolbe 2mo ago
Yes, that is a good example. I used to be cynical about these uses of money until I met a 70-year-old volunteer who regularly attends international cycling championships to take pictures of the cyclists. She is totally devoted to documenting the sport and is not by any stretch of the imagination getting rich doing that or living in luxury. So I've changed my mind: her being able to do that is a good thing for her, for Wikipedia and for the sportspeople involved in these championships. YMMV.
wildfireday2 2mo ago
That $500K over three years represents 0.08% of the foundation’s budget in that time period. The question is, what are they spending the other 99.92%? There is a significant small chunk spent on crucial infrastructure, but it’s mostly a slush fund for board pet projects.
Kayvanian 2mo ago
WikiPortraits organizer here. That funding figure is through the end of 2027. I'd estimate ~$550k total from the WMF over 4 years (accounting for additional rapid grants and funding from affiliates). So looking at an overall average of ~$135k per year out of a ~$200 million budget to (so far in 2.5 years) engage 150+ photographers who have uploaded 90k+ photos from hundreds of events. Good downstream impact as well (developing better tools for Commons, bringing on more longterm contributors to both Commons and Wikipedia, etc.). Also want to highlight that WikiPortraits is not just covering the fancy events like FIFA and Cannes, but many more smaller and undercovered events as well (indigenous festivals, science conferences, literature festivals, and so on). World Cup coverage in particular was relatively very cheap for how high-visibility the photos are on Wikipedia (majority of matches were covered locally); we've put more towards getting wiki photographers in Benin, Ghana, and Kenya support to cover their local culture and events. For the amount of direct impact we have on Wikipedia and Commons, I'll go to bat to say that it's a good use of money compared to a good number of other projects that have received more funding over the years (ofc I have a conflict of interest here, but still). But I do get the larger point, that this sort of project is not necessarily what people expect when they donate to Wikimedia (and Cannes and FIFA of course stand out in the list of events being covered and are what people will focus on). And I've also been critical of the WMF's approach to donation comms for this reason.