When people think of contributing to Wikimedia Commons, they think of uploading photographs. That is part of it. But when I look at my own edit history, most of my edits are not uploads at all. They are on file pages that already exist: fixing categories, correcting descriptions, checking whether a file belongs on Commons, and placing images where readers will actually see them.
This post is about that quieter half of the work, and why I think it matters as much as the uploading.
A file nobody can find is a file nobody uses
Commons holds well over a hundred million files. Search helps, but most real discovery on Commons happens through categories: a person interested in a temple, a dish, a bird species or a festival opens its category and browses.
That only works if files are in the right categories. A photograph of a specific step-well placed only in "Monuments in India" is technically categorised and practically lost. Someone looking for that step-well will never scroll through hundreds of thousands of files to find it.
What I actually do
Most of my categorisation work falls into a few recurring patterns.
Moving files from broad to specific categories. Commons guidance asks that files sit in the most specific category that applies. A photograph of a particular dish belongs in that dish's category, not only in "Food of India".
Correcting wrong categories. Uploaders often guess, or tools suggest something close but wrong: the wrong town, the wrong species, the wrong building with a similar name.
Fixing category hierarchies. Sometimes the problem is not the file but the category itself, which sits under the wrong parent or is missing one. Fixing one parent can make an entire group of files discoverable.
Flagging files that should not be on Commons. Occasionally a file is clearly someone else's copyrighted work, out of scope, or a duplicate. I flag these for review through the normal deletion processes, and leave the decision to the community.
For bulk work I use Cat-a-lot, a Commons gadget that lets you select many files in a category or search result and move, add or remove categories in one action. It turns an afternoon of repetitive edits into a few minutes, though it needs care: a bulk change made carelessly is a bulk mistake.
My own uploads follow the same rules
I upload my own photographs of monuments, food, cultural events and Wikimedia gatherings, and I try to make each file page complete before I move on: a specific title, a description that says what, where and when, specific categories, and location data. Location is one of the most useful and most often missing pieces of information, so I add it wherever I can.
The step most campaigns skip: putting images into articles
This is the part I care about most.
A photograph on Commons reaches very few people by itself. The same photograph placed in the right Wikipedia article can reach thousands of readers. Yet the step from Commons to the article is the one most often skipped.
I have noticed a pattern in photo campaigns, including ones I have been part of. Organisers work hard on outreach, uploads and judging. Results are announced, winners are celebrated, and the campaign ends. The images remain in a category, many of them excellent, many of them never used anywhere.
After the Wiki Science Competition 2025 in India, where I was National Lead, I decided that the campaign was not finished when the results were published. I have kept going back through the entries to find images that genuinely improve an article, and adding them where they belong: an instrument in the article about that instrument, a specimen in the article about its species, a process in the article that explains it.
I do the same with my own photographs, and with other contributors' files I come across while categorising or reviewing. If I find a good photograph of a monument whose Wikipedia article has no image, adding it takes two minutes.
Why visuals matter in an encyclopedia
A paragraph describing the carving style of a temple doorway is useful. A photograph of that doorway next to the paragraph is often what makes the description make sense. For readers who are young, reading in a second language, or simply skimming, the image may be the first thing they understand.
That is why I think of curation as part of the same chain as photography. The photographer captures the subject. The file page explains it. Categories make it findable. And an article puts it in front of a reader who needed it.
A small habit worth building
If you upload to Commons, try one thing after your next upload: search Wikipedia for the subject of your photograph, in your own language and in English. If the article has no image, or a poor one, add yours. If you are an organiser, consider making "put the best images into articles" an official final stage of your campaign, with its own volunteers.
It is unglamorous work. Nobody gives a prize for a well-placed category or a well-chosen article image. But it is often the difference between a file that exists and a file that teaches.