From some time I've observed very strange thing:
Most of uploaded on commons copyvios is made by users who has spanish-like nicks, write in looking in this manner language, etc.
Because I see very large time coincidence with closing upload on es.wiki, I have (I hope) very good method of solving that:
I'm going to ban every user who will look like from es.wiki to me, without any warning after first upload.
Maybe than complains of such users will force them to open upload :)
AJF/WarX
But isn't Commons supposed to be the repository of images of all the Wikis, so that at some point in the future, all files will (are supposed to) be uploaded to Commons? Finally there's a Wikipedia that does that and you are trying to make them regret their decision? I don't believe this to be a good way of action.
Lennert B
Lennert Böhm napisał(a):
But isn't Commons supposed to be the repository of images of all the Wikis, so that at some point in the future, all files will (are supposed to) be uploaded to Commons? Finally there's a Wikipedia that does that and you are trying to make them regret their decision? I don't believe this to be a good way of action.
Me either.
However, Artur has a poin there, or rather - he has hinted at a very serious problem we're facing right now.
On one hand using Commons should be easy and fun (it's still a wiki, right?). On thee other, however, if we make it to easy we may not be able to cope with the amount of copyvios.
I am 100% for moving all uploads to Commons, but I believe we have to have a procedure for that. I.e. some things should be done well *before* local uploads are disabled on a given wiki.
Some of those might include: * translating most of the interface * translating key project and help pages (the commons community should complie a list of those) * translating key templates * having at least N active Commons admins speaking the language of the wiki in question at level 2 or higher (where N is... well... I don't know, you tell me ;))
I'm not sure if that's all. Any other ideas?
The main idea is: yes, let's do this. But let's do it one step at a time, based on a common process.
On 11/12/06, Łukasz Garczewski tor@oak.pl wrote:
Lennert Böhm napisał(a):
But isn't Commons supposed to be the repository of images of all the Wikis, so that at some point in the future, all files will (are supposed to) be uploaded to Commons? Finally there's a Wikipedia that does that and you are trying to make them regret their decision? I don't believe this to be a good way of action.
Me either.
However, Artur has a poin there, or rather - he has hinted at a very serious problem we're facing right now.
On one hand using Commons should be easy and fun (it's still a wiki, right?). On thee other, however, if we make it to easy we may not be able to cope with the amount of copyvios.
I am 100% for moving all uploads to Commons, but I believe we have to have a procedure for that. I.e. some things should be done well *before* local uploads are disabled on a given wiki.
Some of those might include:
- translating most of the interface
- translating key project and help pages (the commons community should
complie a list of those)
- translating key templates
- having at least N active Commons admins speaking the language of the
wiki in question at level 2 or higher (where N is... well... I don't know, you tell me ;))
I'm not sure if that's all. Any other ideas?
The main idea is: yes, let's do this. But let's do it one step at a time, based on a common process.
N would be about 1000 for english. Currently less than 500 items are deleted from commons per day. To bost that to the level of some of our pedias would be a massive increase in workload.
On 11/12/06, Lennert Böhm lennert.boehm@gmx.de wrote:
But isn't Commons supposed to be the repository of images of all the Wikis, so that at some point in the future, all files will (are supposed to) be uploaded to Commons?
Not going to happen. You will get fair use off wikipedia when you prise it from it's cold dead hands.
Finally there's a Wikipedia that does that and you are trying to make them regret their decision? I don't believe this to be a good way of action.
Lennert B
Commons just doesn't have the resources at the moment.
Sorry for that, obviously I meant those that comply with our license. I'm from de:WP, you don't have to tell me that Fair Use is pure evil ;)
Lennert B
On 11/12/06, Lennert Böhm lennert.boehm@gmx.de wrote:
But isn't Commons supposed to be the repository of images of all the Wikis, so that at some point in the future, all files will (are supposed to) be uploaded to Commons? Finally there's a Wikipedia that does that and you are trying to make them regret their decision? I don't believe this to be a good way of action.
And perhaps the Eswiki decision has showed us an error in our thinking.
It is true that just blanket banning is the wrong course of action, but it does seem clear that we have problems.. Our Spanish speaking volunteers are not as great in number as what eswiki has and we can never expect that to change.
Perhaps we should say that commons is the repository that experienced wikimedians should use... After all, it's easy enough to move content between Wikis.
I think that even without the language barriers it would be important that commons content is a higher quality than the basic uploads on the Wikis. It seems clear to me that many of commons quality problems are caused by ignorance on the part of the uploaders.
Not asking newbies to upload here may be a good start.
On 12/11/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I think that even without the language barriers it would be important that commons content is a higher quality than the basic uploads on the Wikis. It seems clear to me that many of commons quality problems are caused by ignorance on the part of the uploaders. Not asking newbies to upload here may be a good start.
Possibly we should start a separate project ... a service project for other Wikimedia projects to use as an image repository, to avoid duplicated images between wikis. Since Commons thinks it's toooo haaaard to stoop to that any more. Does that sound like it might be a useful idea?
- d.
On 11/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I think that even without the language barriers it would be important that commons content is a higher quality than the basic uploads on the Wikis. It seems clear to me that many of commons quality problems are caused by ignorance on the part of the uploaders. Not asking newbies to upload here may be a good start.
Possibly we should start a separate project ... a service project for other Wikimedia projects to use as an image repository, to avoid duplicated images between wikis. Since Commons thinks it's toooo haaaard to stoop to that any more. Does that sound like it might be a useful idea?
I think that would be kinda redundant.
I think an image should be given the proper QA before it gets spread across multiple wikis where the language barriers will make proper QA difficult.
I don't think I've seen anyone on commons claim that duplicate images are too hard to stop (or that they are a major problem when we can't stop them).. rather, it's impossible to fix the copyright status of an image when a drive-by user uploads since they never set an email, and never check back (most likely they create a new account for their next upload). ... and even when we can get their attention we often find ourselves understaffed in the language the uploader speaks.
On 12/11/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Possibly we should start a separate project ... a service project for other Wikimedia projects to use as an image repository, to avoid duplicated images between wikis. Since Commons thinks it's toooo haaaard to stoop to that any more. Does that sound like it might be a useful idea?
I think that would be kinda redundant.
Well, uh, *yeah*.
Commons was not started as a free-culture media repository of spectacular cultural potential. It was started as a shared image repository service project for the Wikimedia projects. Here we have Commons admins claiming it's toooo haaaard to do the job Commons was invented for, so they'll start behaving in an actively hostile manner to other Wikimedia projects.
I don't think I've seen anyone on commons claim that duplicate images are too hard to stop (or that they are a major problem when we can't stop them).. rather, it's impossible to fix the copyright status of an image when a drive-by user uploads since they never set an email, and never check back (most likely they create a new account for their next upload). ... and even when we can get their attention we often find ourselves understaffed in the language the uploader speaks.
So when a new language starts using Commons for its images - the way all projects are supposed to with their free-content images - then Commons needs to add an admin or two from that project. If Commons can't do the job with the admins it has now, it needs to add a new procedure to allow admins from said projects to be trusted to do the same job on Commons.
Else Commons fails in its original purpose, and will need replacing with a project that will work.
- d.
2006/11/12, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
Commons was not started as a free-culture media repository of spectacular cultural potential. It was started as a shared image repository service project for the Wikimedia projects. Here we have Commons admins claiming it's toooo haaaard to do the job Commons was invented for, so they'll start behaving in an actively hostile manner to other Wikimedia projects.
Perhaps we should involve more active admins from Wikipedias into Commons. For instance, there are just 6 Spanish Wikipedia admins that are also admins on Commons of a total of 88 admins there.
Barcex.
On 11/12/06, Barcex lv.cabc@gmail.com wrote:
2006/11/12, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
Commons was not started as a free-culture media repository of spectacular cultural potential. It was started as a shared image repository service project for the Wikimedia projects. Here we have Commons admins claiming it's toooo haaaard to do the job Commons was invented for, so they'll start behaving in an actively hostile manner to other Wikimedia projects.
Perhaps we should involve more active admins from Wikipedias into Commons. For instance, there are just 6 Spanish Wikipedia admins that are also admins on Commons of a total of 88 admins there.
Barcex.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
;) And some mexican editors are commons admins but not es admins ;)
On 11/13/06, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
;) And some mexican editors are commons admins but not es admins ;)
No shock: a real minority of es edits are made from .mx.
Hmm... I am actually shocked. I was expecting the contrary since there are more Americans (Mexicans and USians) than Spanish....
On 11/13/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/13/06, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
;) And some mexican editors are commons admins but not es admins ;)
No shock: a real minority of es edits are made from .mx. _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 11/17/06, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm... I am actually shocked. I was expecting the contrary since there are more Americans (Mexicans and USians) than Spanish....
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Edits_by_project_and_country_of_origin
I'll be doing an updated data collection run soon.
In any case, it would appear that the distribution is not entirely controlled by the number of speakers, or even the number of speakers with computer access.... but by more complex factors.
How does *your* edit count on the Turkish Wikipedia compare to your edit count on Enwiki?
2000 vs 31000? Doesn't compare well. :) I do not like working for Tr.wikiall that much at the moment. In all fairness however I am no native tr speaker. - Cool Cat
On 11/17/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/17/06, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm... I am actually shocked. I was expecting the contrary since there
are
more Americans (Mexicans and USians) than Spanish....
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Edits_by_project_and_country_of_origin
I'll be doing an updated data collection run soon.
In any case, it would appear that the distribution is not entirely controlled by the number of speakers, or even the number of speakers with computer access.... but by more complex factors.
How does *your* edit count on the Turkish Wikipedia compare to your edit count on Enwiki? _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 11/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I think that would be kinda redundant.
Well, uh, *yeah*.
Commons was not started as a free-culture media repository of spectacular cultural potential. It was started as a shared image repository service project for the Wikimedia projects. Here we have Commons admins claiming it's toooo haaaard to do the job Commons was invented for, so they'll start behaving in an actively hostile manner to other Wikimedia projects.
It fails as a shared image repository service when the language barriers cause it to do a worse job than the projects working alone would do.
One person has suggested (hopefully jokingly) that he should behave with hostility. No one else is taking up that charge but we are interested in working towards solutions which improve things for everyone.
So when a new language starts using Commons for its images - the way all projects are supposed to with their free-content images - then Commons needs to add an admin or two from that project.
Okay sure, I've added it to our budget and we now have two open FTEs for Spanish speakers. The position requires fluency in multiple languages, a comprehensive understanding of international copyright law, and terrific people skills. We'll start interviewing right away, but with a salary of $0 and no benefits it might take us a while to fill the openings.
If Commons can't do the job with the admins it has now, it needs to add a new procedure to allow admins from said projects to be trusted to do the same job on Commons.
You've failed to make any argument why two stage upload from content from new users is in any way inferior to cramming it all into commons directly.
Else Commons fails in its original purpose, and will need replacing with a project that will work.
You're such a troll David. :)
With nearly a million images I think we're long past the point were anyone could reasonably call it a failure.
On 12/11/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If Commons can't do the job with the admins it has now, it needs to add a new procedure to allow admins from said projects to be trusted to do the same job on Commons.
You've failed to make any argument why two stage upload from content from new users is in any way inferior to cramming it all into commons directly.
For the same reason anyone can edit. Our usual practice is to get the maximal contribution input then clean it up afterward, rather than try to limit it before the fact.
- d.
On 11/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
For the same reason anyone can edit. Our usual practice is to get the maximal contribution input then clean it up afterward, rather than try to limit it before the fact.
If a user uploads an image without information and we're unable to get ahold of them we must delete it. This is a pretty different situation from a user who makes a few copyedits to the text of an article.
This substantial difference is demonstrated clearly by the relative deletion rates of images and article on enwiki. Images are deleted at a much higher rate relative to new image uploading than articles are relative to new article creation.
I welcome contributions from new users on commons... but I think it's both unfair and masochistic to demand users who are currently unwilling to undertake the burden of participating in a multilingual project to make their uploads to commons.
It's so trivial to move a properly sourced/tagged image after the fact, I just don't see why you are whining David.
I'd like to consider your views but considering your poor ratio of commons contributions to mailinglist outspokenness right now (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/David_Gerard) I'm having a difficult time seeing your messages as anything other than a waste of my time.
On 11/12/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
If a user uploads an image without information and we're unable to get ahold of them we must delete it. This is a pretty different situation from a user who makes a few copyedits to the text of an article.
This substantial difference is demonstrated clearly by the relative deletion rates of images and article on enwiki. Images are deleted at a much higher rate relative to new image uploading than articles are relative to new article creation.
I welcome contributions from new users on commons... but I think it's both unfair and masochistic to demand users who are currently unwilling to undertake the burden of participating in a multilingual project to make their uploads to commons.
Your problem and solution don't seem to be properly coordinated. The problem is people who come to commons, create accounts, and then never check those accounts. It really has little to do with multilingualism. If English WP shut off uploads and sent people to commons it would be mostly the same problem.
Commons isn't ready for a large influx of contributions by what I'll call "drive-by contributors from other projects".
It probably will be some day. I hope we are all in agreement that that's what we want, even if we can't agree on whether or not to start working on it *now*.
I wonder if it's time to take this to foundation-l, as it's a major issue which affects pretty much all of the projects.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
On 11/12/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
If a user uploads an image without information and we're unable to get ahold of them we must delete it. This is a pretty different situation from a user who makes a few copyedits to the text of an article.
This substantial difference is demonstrated clearly by the relative deletion rates of images and article on enwiki. Images are deleted at a much higher rate relative to new image uploading than articles are relative to new article creation.
I welcome contributions from new users on commons... but I think it's both unfair and masochistic to demand users who are currently unwilling to undertake the burden of participating in a multilingual project to make their uploads to commons.
Your problem and solution don't seem to be properly coordinated. The problem is people who come to commons, create accounts, and then never check those accounts. It really has little to do with multilingualism. If English WP shut off uploads and sent people to commons it would be mostly the same problem.
Commons isn't ready for a large influx of contributions by what I'll call "drive-by contributors from other projects".
It probably will be some day. I hope we are all in agreement that that's what we want, even if we can't agree on whether or not to start working on it *now*.
I wonder if it's time to take this to foundation-l, as it's a major issue which affects pretty much all of the projects.
I was ready to take it to Foundation-l at the point at which WarX said "I am going to block anyone from eswiki", because it would probably drive people back to the es: fork...
On 11/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
For the same reason anyone can edit. Our usual practice is to get the maximal contribution input then clean it up afterward, rather than try to limit it before the fact.
And as a result we still have a load of stuff in [[en:Category:Images used with permission]] and my talk page is filling up with people complaining that I keep deleting their images.
We also have issues such as trying to dig figure out when a copyvio entered an article and according to certian message board posts people getting threatening letters for useing wikipedia images in good faith.
For once it would be nice not to have to try and play catch up.
2006/11/12, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
So when a new language starts using Commons for its images - the way all projects are supposed to with their free-content images - then Commons needs to add an admin or two from that project. If Commons can't do the job with the admins it has now, it needs to add a new procedure to allow admins from said projects to be trusted to do the same job on Commons.
Else Commons fails in its original purpose, and will need replacing with a project that will work.
Wrong direction!
The problem is not that there are not enough admins, the problem is, that there are not enough USERS, especially people who watches special:newimages and catch copyvios, problematic users, etc. Of course you can say, that it should be done by admins and if so, it means, that there are not enough of them.
Commons is large project, even very large, but has to few people and maybe software is not good enough to work with it :P
Sometimes I dream about project Commons^2 working in parallel with current, but allowing upload only some way verified material from Commons.
But even that will not stop conversion of our Commons into giant swamp.
AJF/WarX
ps. How to explain people that not every ''shitty image'' they produce is worth publishing on Wikimedia projects?
On 11/12/06, Artur Fijałkowski wiki.warx@gmail.com wrote:
Sometimes I dream about project Commons^2 working in parallel with current, but allowing upload only some way verified material from Commons.
But even that will not stop conversion of our Commons into giant swamp.
AJF/WarX
ps. How to explain people that not every ''shitty image'' they produce is worth publishing on Wikimedia projects?
Don't. Hard drive space is cheaper than instilling common sense into people. :), but I'm essentially serious.
Anthony
On 11/12/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Don't. Hard drive space is cheaper than instilling common sense into people. :), but I'm essentially serious.
Hard drive space is cheap as long as you don't consider any secondary costs of storage. Ask Brion how our backups for commons images are doing.
More importantly: categorization, verification, search, etc are not cheap. Nor is the time of the users we serve. We'd do a great disservice by allowing commons to become a disordered dumping ground.
On 11/12/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Don't. Hard drive space is cheaper than instilling common sense into people. :), but I'm essentially serious.
Hard drive space is cheap as long as you don't consider any secondary costs of storage. Ask Brion how our backups for commons images are doing.
At the worst backups should require twice as much space as the images themselves. If Wikimedia's backups require much more Brion is doing something really really wrong.
Note that I didn't even say hard drive space was cheap. I just said it's cheaper than education.
More importantly: categorization, verification, search, etc are not cheap. Nor is the time of the users we serve. We'd do a great disservice by allowing commons to become a disordered dumping ground.
You contradict yourself. Being a disordered dumping ground doesn't require categorization, verification, or search.
Anthony
On 11/12/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
At the worst backups should require twice as much space as the images themselves. If Wikimedia's backups require much more Brion is doing something really really wrong.
Note that I didn't even say hard drive space was cheap. I just said it's cheaper than education.
*sigh*. If only things were ever that simple.
Simply having 2x disks in the same chassis isn't a backup, and the total costs for all complex things are non-linear.
More importantly: categorization, verification, search, etc are not cheap. Nor is the time of the users we serve. We'd do a great disservice by allowing commons to become a disordered dumping ground.
You contradict yourself. Being a disordered dumping ground doesn't require categorization, verification, or search.
No I don't. I suspect you've been confused by my befuddled English.
The avoidance of being a disordered dumping ground requires non-trivial *per image* work for categorization, verification, etc. "Upload all your trash" doesn't scale and will ensure that we are never able to become well ordered... which is an outcome which would diminish our value to the public.
On 11/12/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
At the worst backups should require twice as much space as the images themselves. If Wikimedia's backups require much more Brion is doing something really really wrong.
Note that I didn't even say hard drive space was cheap. I just said it's cheaper than education.
*sigh*. If only things were ever that simple.
Simply having 2x disks in the same chassis isn't a backup, and the total costs for all complex things are non-linear.
Rotating tapes offsite is a backup. Transferring everything to two other data centers is a backup (put those data centers on different continents and it's a local cache too). Backup isn't a complex thing. And unless you're doing something dumb the cost of backup is most certainly linear (compared to the cost of the initial storage).
Put the image dumps in gigabyte chunks on a superseeding bittorrent server, and you could probably get backups nearly free (just the cost of transferring the images once if you can convince enough others to act as seeds, which you probably could). Of course, now I'm talking introducing a bit of design into things. Really stupid easy backups like the ones in my first message are still linear.
More importantly: categorization, verification, search, etc are not cheap. Nor is the time of the users we serve. We'd do a great disservice by allowing commons to become a disordered dumping ground.
You contradict yourself. Being a disordered dumping ground doesn't require categorization, verification, or search.
No I don't. I suspect you've been confused by my befuddled English.
The avoidance of being a disordered dumping ground requires non-trivial *per image* work for categorization, verification, etc. "Upload all your trash" doesn't scale and will ensure that we are never able to become well ordered... which is an outcome which would diminish our value to the public.
I'd say that "explain[ing to] people that not every ''shitty image'' they produce is worth publishing on Wikimedia projects" doesn't scale either, and that an image repository with some parts which are organized and some parts which aren't has an equal or even higher value than an image repository without those disorganized parts.
Of course, space *is* a consideration, and it wouldn't make sense to outright advertise "dump all your trash here". By all means rules should be in place that say that useless crap will be deleted. And sure, if space gets tight that rule might need to be enforced to a greater extent than when it isn't. But trying to explain to people what should be obvious, that I'd say is a waste of resources.
Anthony
Will you ban me? It is not a good idea.
Diego UFCG
On 11/12/06, Artur Fijałkowski wiki.warx@gmail.com wrote:
From some time I've observed very strange thing:
Most of uploaded on commons copyvios is made by users who has spanish-like nicks, write in looking in this manner language, etc.
Because I see very large time coincidence with closing upload on es.wiki, I have (I hope) very good method of solving that:
I'm going to ban every user who will look like from es.wiki to me, without any warning after first upload.
Maybe than complains of such users will force them to open upload :)
AJF/WarX _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
06-11-12, Diego Renato diego.renato@gmail.com napisał(a):
Will you ban me? It is not a good idea.
No... I really don't like banning anyone (or I simple can't people I want :P)
Main problem (hidden in the topic), is that:
People uploading copyvio images are not BAD, they are simple not informed well !!
I don't know Spanish, so I can't check it by myself, but I have bad feeling that closing upload on es.wiki was made in tihs way:
OK - we have same politics of licenses as commons, so we can close upload on our wiki.
And now people come to commons, they don't know anything about copyrights/licenses, they are unable to find anything in Spanish language about it, so they do what they think is good...
This assumption is based on another observation:
Lots of uploads are fair use images from en.wiki and images from 'random' webpages.
On pl.wiki we have LARGE and clear instruction: If you don't know what you are doing, don't even think of moving images from en.wiki and web, and I think it works ...
So as said TOR: closing upload is OK, but it must be made with care cause Commons is very very vulnerable project.
AJF/WarX
On 11/12/06, Artur Fijałkowski wiki.warx@gmail.com wrote:
06-11-12, Diego Renato diego.renato@gmail.com napisał(a):
Will you ban me? It is not a good idea.
No... I really don't like banning anyone (or I simple can't people I want :P)
Main problem (hidden in the topic), is that:
People uploading copyvio images are not BAD, they are simple not informed well !!
I don't know Spanish, so I can't check it by myself, but I have bad feeling that closing upload on es.wiki was made in tihs way:
OK - we have same politics of licenses as commons, so we can close upload on our wiki.
And now people come to commons, they don't know anything about copyrights/licenses, they are unable to find anything in Spanish language about it, so they do what they think is good...
This assumption is based on another observation:
Lots of uploads are fair use images from en.wiki and images from 'random' webpages.
On pl.wiki we have LARGE and clear instruction: If you don't know what you are doing, don't even think of moving images from en.wiki and web, and I think it works ...
So as said TOR: closing upload is OK, but it must be made with care cause Commons is very very vulnerable project.
AJF/WarX _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Now the "Upload file" on the spanish wiki links directly to the commons upload dialog with spanish instructions ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?uselang=es ) First line, suggest to read First steps. Second line: tells to upload only free stuff 3rd line: only upload useful stuff 4th line: give detailed info
So if anything needs to be added, it hsould be done at COmmons (since it's where the page is located)