Mark Williamson wrote:
Alphax wrote:
Hi Gerard,
Please read further down the thread, you will see that Mark addressed
this issue already. There is a sizeable number of people in favour of
signed Wikipedias; what remains to be seen is *how* it will be done.
I also addressed the issue of how it should be done. In short, my
proposal was advocation of using sign synthesis software, the likes of
which already exists.
Glad to hear it can be done. I'm starting to think that the easiest
short-term solution would be a Mediawiki extension.
Yet again I am forced to ask: Is there
any existing literature in sign language?)
In American Signed Language, yes. That's if you define "literature" as
written only. I personally would include the signed version of "oral
literature" (perhaps "manual literature"?), because much more of that
exists. However, there is printed literature in ASL. The writing
systems used vary widely.
Glad to hear it. See my reply to the next section though...
Oh, and if all these people for whom sign language
is their primary
language have only a 4th-grade reading level, how are they supposed to
even get on the internet and contribute to a signed Wikipedia? The last
time I checked, teaching literacy was *not* a primary goal of the
Wikimedia Foundation.
Most people with 4th grade reading levels should be able to connect to
the internet.
So where will reference material come from? Primarily translations from
texts in spoken languages?
Oh, and the next question is: What's the literacy rate of any written
forms (as in, something you can put on paper) of signed languages
amongst the deaf population? Or are the orthographies symbolic in such a
way that reading it is similar to watching someone actually sign?
--
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \