I realise that proposal for a Wikipedia in American Sign Language has remained without a decision since 2007 february 15th, more than a year and half.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_American... Current policy don't say anything about those: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy But, community draft expressly accept them: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft What about you, do you think wikimedia, should be deprived of these potential resources? C.m.l.
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Crazy Lover always_yours.forever@yahoo.com wrote:
I realise that proposal for a Wikipedia in American Sign Language has remained without a decision since 2007 february 15th, more than a year and half.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_American... Current policy don't say anything about those: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy But, community draft expressly accept them: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft What about you, do you think wikimedia, should be deprived of these potential resources? C.m.l.
It's great that we have people to do this, but it's currently not *technically* possible to do it. Until a technical solution becomes available and is enabled on Wikimedia sites, we can't do this.
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Crazy Lover always_yours.forever@yahoo.com wrote:
I realise that proposal for a Wikipedia in American Sign Language has remained without a decision since 2007 february 15th, more than a year and half.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_American... Current policy don't say anything about those: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy But, community draft expressly accept them: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft What about you, do you think wikimedia, should be deprived of these potential resources? C.m.l.
It's great that we have people to do this, but it's currently not *technically* possible to do it. Until a technical solution becomes available and is enabled on Wikimedia sites, we can't do this.
See this section for discussion about this: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_American_Sign_Language_2#Format. It seems that it's not anyone's fault, they just need to figure out what form first. Then, we need a bug to get that capability enabled on Wikimedia wikis.
Casey Brown hett schreven:
It's great that we have people to do this, but it's currently not *technically* possible to do it. Until a technical solution becomes available and is enabled on Wikimedia sites, we can't do this.
There is an extension: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SignWriting_MediaWiki_Plugin
Marcus Buck
Just thinking aloud: Until separate projects are implemented for the sign languages, maybe projects on existing Wikipedias similar to the Spoken Wikiproject create videos of the different articles on Wikipedia or the different words on Wiktionary. As I understand the upload limit of videos has been raised recently, so even the bit longer articles could be signed. Best regards, Bence Damokos
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Casey Brown hett schreven:
It's great that we have people to do this, but it's currently not *technically* possible to do it. Until a technical solution becomes available and is enabled on Wikimedia sites, we can't do this.
There is an extension: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SignWriting_MediaWiki_Plugin
Marcus Buck
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, The proposal is for ASL to be written in SignWriting. This has the added benefit that whatever is actually written can also be edited in our wiki style. The problem with video is that you cannot change it and consequently it is not really Wiki.
Steve Slevinsky is working on an extension that will allow for the writing of any sign languages using SignWriting. I understand that he is even cosidering another skin.. This will allow for much of the user interface to be localised. Thanks, GerardM
2008/11/22 Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com
Just thinking aloud: Until separate projects are implemented for the sign languages, maybe projects on existing Wikipedias similar to the Spoken Wikiproject create videos of the different articles on Wikipedia or the different words on Wiktionary. As I understand the upload limit of videos has been raised recently, so even the bit longer articles could be signed. Best regards, Bence Damokos
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Casey Brown hett schreven:
It's great that we have people to do this, but it's currently not *technically* possible to do it. Until a technical solution becomes available and is enabled on Wikimedia sites, we can't do this.
There is an extension: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SignWriting_MediaWiki_Plugin
Marcus Buck
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The proposal is for ASL to be written in SignWriting. This has the added benefit that whatever is actually written can also be edited in our wiki style. The problem with video is that you cannot change it and consequently it is not really Wiki.
Steve Slevinsky is working on an extension that will allow for the writing of any sign languages using SignWriting. I understand that he is even cosidering another skin.. This will allow for much of the user interface to be localised.
But SignWriting is not sign-language: Many people who are deaf and use ASL (and, I presume, other forms of sign language) are unaware of and have no interest in SignWriting as being deaf does not result in an inherit inability to communicate using more common written languages.
As far as I am aware SignWriting characters do not occur in any standard character see, further complicating use. I have no opposition to supporting SignWriting, but Wikis in SignWritten signlanguage probably should be regarded as any other conlang projects are, and certainly not regarded as an accessibility effort.
But SignWriting is not sign-language: Many people who are deaf and use ASL (and, I presume, other forms of sign language) are unaware of and have no interest in SignWriting as being deaf does not result in an inherit inability to communicate using more common written languages.
As far as I am aware SignWriting characters do not occur in any standard character see, further complicating use. I have no opposition to supporting SignWriting, but Wikis in SignWritten signlanguage probably should be regarded as any other conlang projects are, and certainly not regarded as an accessibility effort.
This is my concern as well. From what I can tell, SignWriting is not very widely used (I stand ready to be corrected if people can supply evidence to the contrary), and is almost certainly not used as the sole (or even primary) form of written communication for anyone. It seems to me that SignWriting is a very useful tool for learning and teaching sign language, but that's about it.
Hoi, SignWriting is a script. Consequently what it produces is as faithful a representation as other scripts like the Latin or the Cyrillic. The notion that you can compare it to a constructed language is false as a consequence. Many people who are deaf have not learned to read and write in their own language. They have learned to struggle with languages that are totally foreign to them as they are based on spoken language. There is an inherent inability to learn our sound based languages, this is exactly why deafness is considered to be a disability.
It is true that many deaf people do not know how to write their own language. It is because of the lack of of a script that the Deaf communities have a problem retaining much of the vocabulary that goes out of fashion. It is because of this that their culture is to be given to the next generation by rote and consequently much is lost.
The SignWriting community is steadily getting more attention. A school here, a school there, interest from another country.. They have asked for a Wikipedia and it is only for the technical reasons that we have not given them "eligibility" status yet. These technical reasons are being overcome. Thanks, GerardM
2008/11/23 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The proposal is for ASL to be written in SignWriting. This has the added benefit that whatever is actually written can also be edited in our wiki style. The problem with video is that you cannot change it and
consequently
it is not really Wiki.
Steve Slevinsky is working on an extension that will allow for the
writing
of any sign languages using SignWriting. I understand that he is even cosidering another skin.. This will allow for much of the user interface
to
be localised.
But SignWriting is not sign-language: Many people who are deaf and use ASL (and, I presume, other forms of sign language) are unaware of and have no interest in SignWriting as being deaf does not result in an inherit inability to communicate using more common written languages.
As far as I am aware SignWriting characters do not occur in any standard character see, further complicating use. I have no opposition to supporting SignWriting, but Wikis in SignWritten signlanguage probably should be regarded as any other conlang projects are, and certainly not regarded as an accessibility effort.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The whole situation has some very interesting questions.
- Hasn't SW been copyrighted in the US? - Many people claim that all deaf are literate in dominate languages of their area, but while this is partially true (almost all deaf in, say, the US are functionally literate), it's also true that many people are much more proficient and understand their signed language better than the written form of any spoken language. There's more to that discussion, I think, though. - There are many alternative methods for writing signed languages. Most people who sign don't write it at all, however. - How will the current trend of parents of deaf and HoH children favoring cochlear implants affect the future of ASL? (This question is interesting, but has little impact on an American Sign Language Wikipedia in the short-term)
In general, I have a positive view of the request.
Mark
2008/11/23 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, SignWriting is a script. Consequently what it produces is as faithful a representation as other scripts like the Latin or the Cyrillic. The notion that you can compare it to a constructed language is false as a consequence. Many people who are deaf have not learned to read and write in their own language. They have learned to struggle with languages that are totally foreign to them as they are based on spoken language. There is an inherent inability to learn our sound based languages, this is exactly why deafness is considered to be a disability.
It is true that many deaf people do not know how to write their own language. It is because of the lack of of a script that the Deaf communities have a problem retaining much of the vocabulary that goes out of fashion. It is because of this that their culture is to be given to the next generation by rote and consequently much is lost.
The SignWriting community is steadily getting more attention. A school here, a school there, interest from another country.. They have asked for a Wikipedia and it is only for the technical reasons that we have not given them "eligibility" status yet. These technical reasons are being overcome. Thanks, GerardM
2008/11/23 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The proposal is for ASL to be written in SignWriting. This has the added benefit that whatever is actually written can also be edited in our wiki style. The problem with video is that you cannot change it and
consequently
it is not really Wiki.
Steve Slevinsky is working on an extension that will allow for the
writing
of any sign languages using SignWriting. I understand that he is even cosidering another skin.. This will allow for much of the user interface
to
be localised.
But SignWriting is not sign-language: Many people who are deaf and use ASL (and, I presume, other forms of sign language) are unaware of and have no interest in SignWriting as being deaf does not result in an inherit inability to communicate using more common written languages.
As far as I am aware SignWriting characters do not occur in any standard character see, further complicating use. I have no opposition to supporting SignWriting, but Wikis in SignWritten signlanguage probably should be regarded as any other conlang projects are, and certainly not regarded as an accessibility effort.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
- Many people claim that all deaf are literate in dominate languages
of their area, but while this is partially true (almost all deaf in, say, the US are functionally literate), it's also true that many people are much more proficient and understand their signed language better than the written form of any spoken language. There's more to that discussion, I think, though.
They understand signed ASL (or whatever) better than written English (or whatever), sure, but written ASL vs written English is another matter. If the technical (and possibly legal) difficulties can be overcome, then I guess we might as well give it a shot, but I'm not convinced it's going to be a success. We'll see.
Hoi, As you know copyright is not as relevant as license. SignWriting is available under free licenses. SignWriting is older then any of the Free licenses anyway, this was the reason why there was no mention at all about licenses and copyright. What has always been abundantly clear was that people were encouraged to use SignWriting. Currently there is no longer an issue, all the necessary components are available under a Free license.
When people claim that deaf people are able to read and write in the "dominant" language, they forget that this has never been a reason to deny people their Wikipedia in their language. We do allow people who speak a native American language their projects. Sign languages are as different from the "dominant" language as native American languages are from Spanish, Portuguese or English.
What is relevant to many of the languages that we support is, does a culture exist that can be associated with the language as well. This is very much the case with the Deaf communities. There are things like poetry in sign language, poetry that cannot be translated in spoken language. When people write in their own language they give a different perspective on the same concepts. Different because you have to express it differently. Thanks, GerardM
2008/11/23 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
The whole situation has some very interesting questions.
- Hasn't SW been copyrighted in the US?
- Many people claim that all deaf are literate in dominate languages
of their area, but while this is partially true (almost all deaf in, say, the US are functionally literate), it's also true that many people are much more proficient and understand their signed language better than the written form of any spoken language. There's more to that discussion, I think, though.
- There are many alternative methods for writing signed languages.
Most people who sign don't write it at all, however.
- How will the current trend of parents of deaf and HoH children
favoring cochlear implants affect the future of ASL? (This question is interesting, but has little impact on an American Sign Language Wikipedia in the short-term)
In general, I have a positive view of the request.
Mark
2008/11/23 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, SignWriting is a script. Consequently what it produces is as faithful a representation as other scripts like the Latin or the Cyrillic. The
notion
that you can compare it to a constructed language is false as a
consequence.
Many people who are deaf have not learned to read and write in their own language. They have learned to struggle with languages that are totally foreign to them as they are based on spoken language. There is an
inherent
inability to learn our sound based languages, this is exactly why
deafness
is considered to be a disability.
It is true that many deaf people do not know how to write their own language. It is because of the lack of of a script that the Deaf
communities
have a problem retaining much of the vocabulary that goes out of fashion.
It
is because of this that their culture is to be given to the next
generation
by rote and consequently much is lost.
The SignWriting community is steadily getting more attention. A school
here,
a school there, interest from another country.. They have asked for a Wikipedia and it is only for the technical reasons that we have not given them "eligibility" status yet. These technical reasons are being
overcome.
Thanks, GerardM
2008/11/23 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The proposal is for ASL to be written in SignWriting. This has the
added
benefit that whatever is actually written can also be edited in our
wiki
style. The problem with video is that you cannot change it and
consequently
it is not really Wiki.
Steve Slevinsky is working on an extension that will allow for the
writing
of any sign languages using SignWriting. I understand that he is even cosidering another skin.. This will allow for much of the user
interface
to
be localised.
But SignWriting is not sign-language: Many people who are deaf and use ASL (and, I presume, other forms of sign language) are unaware of and have no interest in SignWriting as being deaf does not result in an inherit inability to communicate using more common written languages.
As far as I am aware SignWriting characters do not occur in any standard character see, further complicating use. I have no opposition to supporting SignWriting, but Wikis in SignWritten signlanguage probably should be regarded as any other conlang projects are, and certainly not regarded as an accessibility effort.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
When people claim that deaf people are able to read and write in the "dominant" language, they forget that this has never been a reason to deny people their Wikipedia in their language. We do allow people who speak a native American language their projects. Sign languages are as different from the "dominant" language as native American languages are from Spanish, Portuguese or English.
However, we do have a policy (for better or worse) that currently states that: "The proposal has a sufficient number of living native speakers to form a viable community and audience." [1]
I've yet to see any information indicating that SignWriting is a primary mode of communication for large groups of people, much less their native method of communication.
-Chad
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy#Requisites
Chad hett schreven:
However, we do have a policy (for better or worse) that currently states that: "The proposal has a sufficient number of living native speakers to form a viable community and audience." [1]
I've yet to see any information indicating that SignWriting is a primary mode of communication for large groups of people, much less their native method of communication.
-Chad
That sentence refers to the language. The language has to have a sufficient number of oral speakers (or signers). It doesn't say anything about the the number of people actually able to read and write in that language. And this configuration does make sense, in my opinion. If we have a hypothetical language with one million oral speakers, but only a handful of people able to write, it will still be useful to create a written encyclopedia. Cause if you start to teach the one million analphabets how to read, they immediately have written content available. If there is no written content available, there is no incentive to learn to read. It's a chicken or egg dilemma. Why are there so few books in Breton? Cause there are so few people able to read Breton. Why are there so few people able to read Breton? Cause there is so few content available. (among other reasons) It's a self-energizing effect. The more content there is, the more interest there will be.
Marcus Buck
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Chad hett schreven:
However, we do have a policy (for better or worse) that currently states that: "The proposal has a sufficient number of living native speakers to form a viable community and audience." [1]
I've yet to see any information indicating that SignWriting is a primary mode of communication for large groups of people, much less their native method of communication.
-Chad
That sentence refers to the language. The language has to have a sufficient number of oral speakers (or signers). It doesn't say anything about the the number of people actually able to read and write in that language.
I disagree. It talks about a sufficient number _to form a viable community and audience_. Only people who write are part of the community. Only people who read are part of the audience.
And this configuration does make sense, in my opinion. If we have a hypothetical language with one million oral speakers, but only a handful of people able to write, it will still be useful to create a written encyclopedia. Cause if you start to teach the one million analphabets how to read, they immediately have written content available. If there is no written content available, there is no incentive to learn to read. It's a chicken or egg dilemma. Why are there so few books in Breton? Cause there are so few people able to read Breton. Why are there so few people able to read Breton? Cause there is so few content available. (among other reasons) It's a self-energizing effect. The more content there is, the more interest there will be.
That may be a laudable task, but it is not our task. Our task is to make content and information available, not to help a language in getting used.
Reading this thread, I see that: * creating a sign language wikipedia is going to have technical problems * even after it is created, the majority of signers of the language will not be able to read it or contribute, and default to 'normal' written language instead * there are several methods of writing sign language, and it is not yet clear which one(s) is (are) going to be used on the long term
Seeing all this, it looks to me that sign languages on the wikis are a lot of work to create a very likely failure.
The ideal situation would be to have an automatic conversion from written sign language to an animation of someone making the signs. However, that doesn't sound like something we'll see in the near future. So for now I am very doubtful about a sign language wiki that the majority of signers is not able to read.
Andre Engels hett schreven:
nd this configuration does make sense, in my opinion. If we have a hypothetical language with one million oral speakers, but only a handful of people able to write, it will still be useful to create a written encyclopedia. Cause if you start to teach the one million analphabets how to read, they immediately have written content available. If there is no written content available, there is no incentive to learn to read. It's a chicken or egg dilemma. Why are there so few books in Breton? Cause there are so few people able to read Breton. Why are there so few people able to read Breton? Cause there is so few content available. (among other reasons) It's a self-energizing effect. The more content there is, the more interest there will be.
That may be a laudable task, but it is not our task.
Are you sane? That's _exactly_ our task! Give access to information to people, who nobody else cares about. English Wikipedia is a great project, but almost all information in it can be found elsewhere on the internet. There are other online encyclopedias, databases, private and institutional websites, Google Books. English Wikipedia is just a more convenient way to access the information out there. It saves you time sorting out the good and bad information on the world wide web. That's it, a convenience tool. But a well-developed Yoruba Wikipedia or Gan Wikipedia or Sango Wikipedia or [add in here one of hundreds of other languages] could be the only easily accessible information resource at all. Nobody cares about giving information access to the five million Sango speakers or the hundreds of thousands signers. We should care! I doesn't cost us much. Well, actually it doesn't cost us anything.
Marcus Buck
Argueing about what languages are welcome in Wikimedia, I think we should agree that *that* language:
2008/11/24 Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org
Are you sane?
is not the kind of language that is contributing to a pleasant discussion atmosphere in this list.
Ziko van Dijk
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Andre Engels hett schreven:
nd this configuration does make sense, in my opinion. If we have a hypothetical language with one million oral speakers, but only a handful of people able to write, it will still be useful to create a written encyclopedia. Cause if you start to teach the one million analphabets how to read, they immediately have written content available. If there is no written content available, there is no incentive to learn to read. It's a chicken or egg dilemma. Why are there so few books in Breton? Cause there are so few people able to read Breton. Why are there so few people able to read Breton? Cause there is so few content available. (among other reasons) It's a self-energizing effect. The more content there is, the more interest there will be.
That may be a laudable task, but it is not our task.
Are you sane? That's _exactly_ our task! Give access to information to people, who nobody else cares about. English Wikipedia is a great project, but almost all information in it can be found elsewhere on the internet. There are other online encyclopedias, databases, private and institutional websites, Google Books. English Wikipedia is just a more convenient way to access the information out there. It saves you time sorting out the good and bad information on the world wide web. That's it, a convenience tool. But a well-developed Yoruba Wikipedia or Gan Wikipedia or Sango Wikipedia or [add in here one of hundreds of other languages] could be the only easily accessible information resource at all. Nobody cares about giving information access to the five million Sango speakers or the hundreds of thousands signers. We should care! I doesn't cost us much. Well, actually it doesn't cost us anything.
You grossly misunderstood me. What I claimed was NOT that we should not be making information available in 'smaller' languages. What I want to claim is that we should do so to make the *information* available, not to help the *language* develop. Wikipedia is there to spread the information. We should have Wikipedia in Yoruba and Sango, not because that helps develop the Yoruba and Sango _languages_ to get more useful and have a higher status, but because it helps the Yoruba and Sango _speakers_ to get the information they want.
And that's where I have my doubts about sign language, at least at this point in time - even among those who have (say) ASL as their first language, literacy in English or Spanish seems to be a lot higher than that in sign language. A Yoruba or Sango speaker may be able to use an English or French Wikipedia quite well to get information, but would be helped even better if the same information were available in their mother tongue. A signer on the other hand is likely to have less difficulties understanding written English than written sign language.
Hoi, The same arguments that apply to people who speak languages like Yoruba and Sango apply to any of the sign languages.. People who are deaf and sign are better served when equal information is available in their sign language.
When people are motivated to work on "their" wikipedia, they do this for their own reasons. When their motivation is that it develops and promotes their language, it is something that is very much particular to them. When well written articles are available for any language, it does indeed promote and develops that language. It is the consequence of quality work. In my opinion it is something we should seek for any language. When people argue that great texts will develop their language, it is therefore a positive argument not a negative one. Thanks, GerardM
2008/11/27 Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Andre Engels hett schreven:
nd this configuration does make sense, in my opinion. If we have a hypothetical language with one million oral speakers, but only a handful of people able to write, it will still be useful to create a written encyclopedia. Cause if you start to teach the one million analphabets how to read, they immediately have written content available. If there is no written content available, there is no incentive to learn to read. It's a chicken or egg dilemma. Why are
there
so few books in Breton? Cause there are so few people able to read Breton. Why are there so few people able to read Breton? Cause there is so few content available. (among other reasons) It's a self-energizing effect. The more content there is, the more interest there will be.
That may be a laudable task, but it is not our task.
Are you sane? That's _exactly_ our task! Give access to information to people, who nobody else cares about. English Wikipedia is a great project, but almost all information in it can be found elsewhere on the internet. There are other online encyclopedias, databases, private and institutional websites, Google Books. English Wikipedia is just a more convenient way to access the information out there. It saves you time sorting out the good and bad information on the world wide web. That's it, a convenience tool. But a well-developed Yoruba Wikipedia or Gan Wikipedia or Sango Wikipedia or [add in here one of hundreds of other languages] could be the only easily accessible information resource at all. Nobody cares about giving information access to the five million Sango speakers or the hundreds of thousands signers. We should care! I doesn't cost us much. Well, actually it doesn't cost us anything.
You grossly misunderstood me. What I claimed was NOT that we should not be making information available in 'smaller' languages. What I want to claim is that we should do so to make the *information* available, not to help the *language* develop. Wikipedia is there to spread the information. We should have Wikipedia in Yoruba and Sango, not because that helps develop the Yoruba and Sango _languages_ to get more useful and have a higher status, but because it helps the Yoruba and Sango _speakers_ to get the information they want.
And that's where I have my doubts about sign language, at least at this point in time - even among those who have (say) ASL as their first language, literacy in English or Spanish seems to be a lot higher than that in sign language. A Yoruba or Sango speaker may be able to use an English or French Wikipedia quite well to get information, but would be helped even better if the same information were available in their mother tongue. A signer on the other hand is likely to have less difficulties understanding written English than written sign language.
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The same arguments that apply to people who speak languages like Yoruba and Sango apply to any of the sign languages.. People who are deaf and sign are better served when equal information is available in their sign language.
Only if it is presented in a way they find easier to understand than written English (or whatever other language). From what I read in this thread, a sign language Wikipedia for many signers will be as useless as the Yiddish Wikipedia is for someone who speaks Yiddish, but has learned reading and writing in his second language which does not use Hebrew script.
When people are motivated to work on "their" wikipedia, they do this for their own reasons. When their motivation is that it develops and promotes their language, it is something that is very much particular to them. When well written articles are available for any language, it does indeed promote and develops that language. It is the consequence of quality work. In my opinion it is something we should seek for any language. When people argue that great texts will develop their language, it is therefore a positive argument not a negative one.
If people work on a language for such a reason, it is of course fine with me, but it is not what, from the POV of the Wikimedia Foundation, the wiki is for. It is, in my opinion, at most a byproduct (is that an English word?).
Andre Engels hett schreven:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Andre Engels hett schreven:
nd this configuration does make sense, in my opinion. If we have a hypothetical language with one million oral speakers, but only a handful of people able to write, it will still be useful to create a written encyclopedia. Cause if you start to teach the one million analphabets how to read, they immediately have written content available. If there is no written content available, there is no incentive to learn to read. It's a chicken or egg dilemma. Why are there so few books in Breton? Cause there are so few people able to read Breton. Why are there so few people able to read Breton? Cause there is so few content available. (among other reasons) It's a self-energizing effect. The more content there is, the more interest there will be.
That may be a laudable task, but it is not our task.
Are you sane? That's _exactly_ our task! Give access to information to people, who nobody else cares about. English Wikipedia is a great project, but almost all information in it can be found elsewhere on the internet. There are other online encyclopedias, databases, private and institutional websites, Google Books. English Wikipedia is just a more convenient way to access the information out there. It saves you time sorting out the good and bad information on the world wide web. That's it, a convenience tool. But a well-developed Yoruba Wikipedia or Gan Wikipedia or Sango Wikipedia or [add in here one of hundreds of other languages] could be the only easily accessible information resource at all. Nobody cares about giving information access to the five million Sango speakers or the hundreds of thousands signers. We should care! I doesn't cost us much. Well, actually it doesn't cost us anything.
You grossly misunderstood me. What I claimed was NOT that we should not be making information available in 'smaller' languages. What I want to claim is that we should do so to make the *information* available, not to help the *language* develop. Wikipedia is there to spread the information. We should have Wikipedia in Yoruba and Sango, not because that helps develop the Yoruba and Sango _languages_ to get more useful and have a higher status, but because it helps the Yoruba and Sango _speakers_ to get the information they want.
But those two are Siamese twins. You cannot separate them. That's what I wanted to say. Chad said "there's no audience" and I said "of course there is no audience when the stage is empty. the balcony will fill once the actors enter the stage". In 1880 there were no gas stations. And there were no good roads. Horses were cheap and motor cars were expensive and loud and they stank. They were not even quicker than the horses. There was no market for motor cars. And still some guys tried to sell motor cars. It took decades until the car was able to replace horses. It will possibly too take decades to make Sango and American Sign full-fledged languages. But isn't it worth to take a start? For a person born deaf, learning to read the written oral language of his environment is like learning Chinese for a person speaking English. It's a big mass of signs and the deaf person cannot make much sense out of them cause they are meant to represent sounds. Sounds that have no meaning to the deaf person. For them it's only an array of strokes and curves. I speak three languages and can read some more. But those are all closely related (and well-equipped with resources) Germanic languages. If I were a Sango speaker I had to learn French or English to obtain non-local bound knowledge. Those languages are completely unrelated. It's again like learning Chinese. I am sure the Sango speakers would be very glad if they had not to learn "Chinese" (perhaps they still would learn it, but they weren't forced any more). If you speak Sango natively and there is a well-developed Sango Wikipedia around, the information becomes available once you attain school and have gained basic reading skills. If there is no Sango Wikipedia around, information only becomes available once you attained school for several years and gained reading and understanding skills in a foreign language. It'll save you some years.
An important point is: Wikimedia's goal is not bottling the brains of humankind with as much information and knowledge as possible. That would be easiest achieved with teaching a world language to all people (as a standardized filling spout). No, we only want to _provide_ information. An easily accessible information repository. Everybody who wants information can obtain it from Wikimedia's projects. As a provider we should provide our material in the easiest accessible format (language). And for most people that's the native (or "first") language.
Marcus Buck
________________________________ From: Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 7:26:17 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Signal languages Wikimedia projects
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
However, we do have a policy (for better or worse) that currently states that: "The proposal has a sufficient number of living native speakers to form a viable community and audience." [1]
I've yet to see any information indicating that SignWriting is a primary mode of communication for large groups of people, much less their native method of communication.
-Chad
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy#Requisites
The community draft of Language proposal policy replace the current requisite for this: "The proposal has a sufficient worldwide number of people able to express themselves at a fluent level, in the written, spoken or signed form, to form a viable community and audience".[1] [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft...
It eliminates the controversy if a sign language is or not a native method of communication. C.m.l.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 2:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
Many people who are deaf have not learned to read and write in their own language.
[snip]
It is true that many deaf people do not know how to write their own language.
I think the shifting definition of 'own language'. In discussions of other languages which follow national borders 'own language' has been defined to be the language spoken by a persons ancestors, regardless of what a person prefers to use. Here we must be using some other meaning since the overwhelming majority of deaf children are born to hearing parents who do not speak sign language.
I know some deaf English readers/writers who would be very insulted if you claimed English was not their language.
There are some deaf advocates who claim that deaf people should not interact with the hearing world, not in person, not online. These are a fringe minority, a vocal minority, but a fringe minority none the less. There are people who argue that deafness is equivalent to national, cultural, or racial identity and that attempting to cure deafness is akin to attempting to cure blackness. (really!) We should not allow these people to set our policy.
[snip]
It is because of the lack of of a script that the Deaf communities have a problem retaining much of the vocabulary that goes out of fashion.
I'm glad you admit that they lack a script. That was basically the core of my statement: They do not, effectively, have a script today. As such it is unreasonable for us to expect that we can do much to help real speakers of these languages today.
We can help people who are working on creating a script for signed language by supporting it in a project. But we have no idea if and when whatever script we support will actually be useful to a significant number of speakers of these languages. Because script support is so wrapped up with pro-isolation advocacy (along with mandatory sign language education and forbidding cochlear implants, as they are all necessary components for isolation) it is a politically loaded area.
There are also competing systems. I do not believe we can decide whether SignWriting or Stokoe's notation system is more desirable, though certainly the latter would present fewer technical limitations.
It is because of this that their culture is to be given to the next generation by rote and consequently much is lost.
I do not generally consider it to be beneficial to have groups of people who are unable to communicate fluently with most of the world. But I admit that there is merit to the claim that cultural things are lost when a pre-existing state adopts a world language. But in the case of the deaf?
The world has enough isolation. On the Internet no one even needs to know that you are deaf… unless you have the misfortune of being raised in one of the few strongly pro-isolationist deaf communities and did not obtain fluency in a common written language.
Wikimedia's mission is to promote knowledge, we believe we can do that best by supporting the many languages which people prefer to use, but Wikimedia projects should not be a tool for promoting isolation. Not nationalist isolation, not cultural isolation, and not the isolation of the deaf. Accomplishing the former without venturing into the latter requires careful action and careful consideration of who we allow to advise us.
I don't really care to carry on an argument over this much further. My last real interaction with the 'deaf community' was almost 8 years ago, and I have too many other projects in progress to worry about how we might be contributing to the isolation of the deaf (or others). I simply do not want the participants here believing that creating a SignWriting Wikipedia would help the deaf *today* as it would not. In the near term it would help SignWriting advocates, just as Lojban wikipedia helps Lojban advocates. I do not think this is a reason to reject SignWriting Wikipedia, but we should be aware of what it actually is and not mistake it for an uncontroversial aid to the deaf.
Here we must be using some other meaning since the overwhelming majority of deaf children are born to hearing parents who do not speak sign language.
Really? Do you have some statistics to back that up? Deafness is very often inherited. It may be a majority, but I doubt it is overwhelming.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Here we must be using some other meaning since the overwhelming majority of deaf children are born to hearing parents who do not speak sign language.
Really? Do you have some statistics to back that up? Deafness is very often inherited. It may be a majority, but I doubt it is overwhelming.
Really.
You're not incorrect, which is why it's only a large majority and not virtually unheard of (there aren't *that many* deaf people, so if it were just random we'd expect only a very tiny number of deaf children to be born to deaf parents).
Random cite for 90%: "More than 90 percent of deaf children are born to hearing parents, many of whom want their children in English-only programs." [http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr98/amer.html]. You can find other sources, it's a fairly frequently cited number.
Also of note: 'More than 90% of children born to Deaf parents have normal hearing. In fact, so unusual is the birth of a deaf child to Deaf parents that often the event is greeted by the parents with great joy, since they have brought into the world "one of their own."' [http://www.ket.org/bookclub/books/2006_mar/essay.htm]
--- On Sun, 11/23/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
From: Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Signal languages Wikimedia projects To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia's mission is to promote knowledge, we believe we can do that best by supporting the many languages which people prefer to use, but Wikimedia projects should not be a tool for promoting isolation. Not nationalist isolation, not cultural isolation, and not the isolation of the deaf. Accomplishing the former without venturing into the latter requires careful action and careful consideration of who we allow to advise us.
This is very well said. But how do we really avoid becoming a tool for promoting isolation? All the projects are accomplished on a grassroots basis and if the grassroots community wishes to be exclusive WMF does not have the capability of making them otherwise. Case in point is the inability see the development of ro.WP with latin/cryllic transliteration. No matter that everyone who is not promoting nationalist isolation understands that this is the solution, it cannot be accomplished until the ro.WP community moves past nationalism.
BirgitteSB
2008/11/23 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
I think the shifting definition of 'own language'. In discussions of other languages which follow national borders 'own language' has been defined to be the language spoken by a persons ancestors, regardless of what a person prefers to use.
Not to mention, to cross threads, when e.g. a Moldovan declares that a Transdneistrian's language is not their own, does not exist and if it does exist it shouldn't, and that everyone else should follow that declaration.
- d.
Greg, this has nothing to do with cochlear implants.
The deaf activist community is not a monolith, and the SignWriting folks are not advocates of isolationism at all.
They simply believe in bilingualism, and that attaining literacy in one's everyday language is valuable in itself, and should also be a great aid in improving literacy in English and other spoken languages. Several SignWriting studies have focused on its use as an educational tool that increases student's real literacy in spoken languages.
Thanks, Pharos
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 2:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
Many people who are deaf have not learned to read and write in their own language.
[snip]
It is true that many deaf people do not know how to write their own language.
I think the shifting definition of 'own language'. In discussions of other languages which follow national borders 'own language' has been defined to be the language spoken by a persons ancestors, regardless of what a person prefers to use. Here we must be using some other meaning since the overwhelming majority of deaf children are born to hearing parents who do not speak sign language.
I know some deaf English readers/writers who would be very insulted if you claimed English was not their language.
There are some deaf advocates who claim that deaf people should not interact with the hearing world, not in person, not online. These are a fringe minority, a vocal minority, but a fringe minority none the less. There are people who argue that deafness is equivalent to national, cultural, or racial identity and that attempting to cure deafness is akin to attempting to cure blackness. (really!) We should not allow these people to set our policy.
[snip]
It is because of the lack of of a script that the Deaf communities have a problem retaining much of the vocabulary that goes out of fashion.
I'm glad you admit that they lack a script. That was basically the core of my statement: They do not, effectively, have a script today. As such it is unreasonable for us to expect that we can do much to help real speakers of these languages today.
We can help people who are working on creating a script for signed language by supporting it in a project. But we have no idea if and when whatever script we support will actually be useful to a significant number of speakers of these languages. Because script support is so wrapped up with pro-isolation advocacy (along with mandatory sign language education and forbidding cochlear implants, as they are all necessary components for isolation) it is a politically loaded area.
There are also competing systems. I do not believe we can decide whether SignWriting or Stokoe's notation system is more desirable, though certainly the latter would present fewer technical limitations.
It is because of this that their culture is to be given to the next generation by rote and consequently much is lost.
I do not generally consider it to be beneficial to have groups of people who are unable to communicate fluently with most of the world. But I admit that there is merit to the claim that cultural things are lost when a pre-existing state adopts a world language. But in the case of the deaf?
The world has enough isolation. On the Internet no one even needs to know that you are deaf… unless you have the misfortune of being raised in one of the few strongly pro-isolationist deaf communities and did not obtain fluency in a common written language.
Wikimedia's mission is to promote knowledge, we believe we can do that best by supporting the many languages which people prefer to use, but Wikimedia projects should not be a tool for promoting isolation. Not nationalist isolation, not cultural isolation, and not the isolation of the deaf. Accomplishing the former without venturing into the latter requires careful action and careful consideration of who we allow to advise us.
I don't really care to carry on an argument over this much further. My last real interaction with the 'deaf community' was almost 8 years ago, and I have too many other projects in progress to worry about how we might be contributing to the isolation of the deaf (or others). I simply do not want the participants here believing that creating a SignWriting Wikipedia would help the deaf *today* as it would not. In the near term it would help SignWriting advocates, just as Lojban wikipedia helps Lojban advocates. I do not think this is a reason to reject SignWriting Wikipedia, but we should be aware of what it actually is and not mistake it for an uncontroversial aid to the deaf. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
Greg, this has nothing to do with cochlear implants.
The deaf activist community is not a monolith, and the SignWriting folks are not advocates of isolationism at all.
Gah, I would not presume to insult them so. For clarity: I'm not claiming that most SignWriting advocates advocate isolationism or that SignWriting doesn't have many non-isolationist uses.
Only that due care is required if we don't want to end up being a tool for isolationism and this is true for all cases where we create distinct Wikipedia communities and is not at all limited to speakers of sign language.
As far as I can tell many people who advocate isolation don't even bother mentioning SignWriting as it's pretty much invisible in much of the deaf world today.
SignWriting is simply not useful to most deaf people today because they do not know it. It is potentially controversial because many people believe that fluency in non-deaf oriented written languages is believed to be important by everyone who isn't isn't trying to create isolation. The line between inclusion and mutual exclusion can be thin.
They simply believe in bilingualism, and that attaining literacy in one's everyday language is valuable in itself,
No "community is (…) a monolith".
I'm honestly sorry that I spoke unclearly: I expect that many people on these lists would find the concept of pro-isolationsm in the deaf community rather mind blowing, I know I certainly did in my own first encounter with it. My effort was only to increase awareness in it as a word of caution, and not to discredit the honourable work done by many on SignWriting who are not trying to promote isolation.
and should also be a great aid in improving literacy in English and other spoken languages. Several SignWriting studies have focused on its use as an educational tool that increases student's real literacy in spoken languages.
I have no doubt, but at the same time there have been studies showing that fluency in morse code has similar kinds of benefits. Shall we add morse code support to Wikipedia? :) (perhaps) As I've said in every post on this subject: I do not oppose SignWriting in Wikimedia projects (well, ignoring the bizarre licensing situation), but I think it's important that we understand that it is not an accessibility tool and will not be in the near term, and that there exist some people who would promote it for isolation, a reason we should resolutely reject.
Let's talk, please, about the bizzarre licensing situation.
Mark
2008/11/23 Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
Greg, this has nothing to do with cochlear implants.
The deaf activist community is not a monolith, and the SignWriting folks are not advocates of isolationism at all.
Gah, I would not presume to insult them so. For clarity: I'm not claiming that most SignWriting advocates advocate isolationism or that SignWriting doesn't have many non-isolationist uses.
Only that due care is required if we don't want to end up being a tool for isolationism and this is true for all cases where we create distinct Wikipedia communities and is not at all limited to speakers of sign language.
As far as I can tell many people who advocate isolation don't even bother mentioning SignWriting as it's pretty much invisible in much of the deaf world today.
SignWriting is simply not useful to most deaf people today because they do not know it. It is potentially controversial because many people believe that fluency in non-deaf oriented written languages is believed to be important by everyone who isn't isn't trying to create isolation. The line between inclusion and mutual exclusion can be thin.
They simply believe in bilingualism, and that attaining literacy in one's everyday language is valuable in itself,
No "community is (…) a monolith".
I'm honestly sorry that I spoke unclearly: I expect that many people on these lists would find the concept of pro-isolationsm in the deaf community rather mind blowing, I know I certainly did in my own first encounter with it. My effort was only to increase awareness in it as a word of caution, and not to discredit the honourable work done by many on SignWriting who are not trying to promote isolation.
and should also be a great aid in improving literacy in English and other spoken languages. Several SignWriting studies have focused on its use as an educational tool that increases student's real literacy in spoken languages.
I have no doubt, but at the same time there have been studies showing that fluency in morse code has similar kinds of benefits. Shall we add morse code support to Wikipedia? :) (perhaps) As I've said in every post on this subject: I do not oppose SignWriting in Wikimedia projects (well, ignoring the bizarre licensing situation), but I think it's important that we understand that it is not an accessibility tool and will not be in the near term, and that there exist some people who would promote it for isolation, a reason we should resolutely reject. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gregory Maxwell hett schreven:
Only that due care is required if we don't want to end up being a tool for isolationism and this is true for all cases where we create distinct Wikipedia communities and is not at all limited to speakers of sign language.
If people like to be isolated, why shouldn't we allow them? It's not Wikimedia's goal to create "one world", but to provide factual knowledge to all people. Even isolated people. Why do we have a Breton Wikipedia? Cause Bretons want to isolate from French. Why do they want to isolate? Cause they are "bad people" who "hate French"? No, cause French dominance destroys Breton. But people want to stay what they are, who they are. They want to stay Breton. They want to keep their identity. Modern society makes it necessary to have a language that enables you to cope with modern society, well, that's nothing else than "to cope with life". If your language doesn't enable you to cope with life there are two ways: 1) create the means that enable you to cope with life in your language. 2) give up your language and the identity intertwined with it and assimilate and integrate into another culture. Languages like English, French, German, Chinese went path 1). Other language, like most of the indigenous languages of the Americas and of Australia went path 2).
Every decision whether to grant a Wikipedia or not, is effectively a calculus, whether the language (and identity connected with it) is _worth_ the effort of being adapted to a life in modern society and whether it is feasible to adapt it to a life in modern society. By the way, when I refer to "adapting" a language, I do not mean lexical or semantical changes or additions (a "constructed standard"). but I speak of resources too. Resources like books, encyclopedias, media etc. Obviously there a few chances that a language with only five speakers wil ever be able to cope with all aspects of life. The speakers obviously have be fluent in another language too and their first language will disappear as dispensable. That's the fate of every language in a perfectly bilingual situation. Morse code doesn't deserve a Wikipedia cause nobody _needs_ it to cope with life and so nobody is interested in making it enable you to cope with life (and actually, of course, it is a script and not a language). Breton _is_ worth being adapted (in my opinion, "worth" of course is always a matter of opinion) and it is feasible too. 200-300,000 people speak it. That's the same order of magnitude as for Icelandic and Icelandic is a full-fledged language able to cope with all aspects of life.
If we do the same calculus for Sater Frisian, with around 1,000 speakers it is questionable, whether it is feasible to adapt the language. It's _worth_ to be adapted (again, in my opinion), but 1,000 people is a tiny community. Iceland has several kinds of industries and it's not too hard to find a good job, where you can work without having to know a foreign language on a near-native level. But in a community of 1,000 it's quite hard to find a job like that. That means almost everyone has to know a foreign language (German in this case) to cope with his job. And as I said above, perfectly bilingual situations are highly instable.
Another example: American English. It's perfectly feasible to adapt American English to cope with life (it's doing that all the time). There are millions of speakers. A Wikipedia of its own would be perfectly feasible. But it wouldn't be worth it, cause the difference to other varieties of English is very small. "Worth" again, is my opinion. There are people, who disagree and believe American English should have a Wikipedia on its own. That's showcased by a recent proposal to create an American English Wikipedia on Meta. It was made by an Englishman. He obviously fears, the American dominance will supplant British English and endanger the British identity.
In the end every Wikipedia was created out of isolationism.
For sign languages we should apply the same calculus. Of course the special nature of sign languages should be kept in mind while doing this. Sign languages do not form close communities. They cannot be supplanted by spoken languages. This for example means that "jobs" (as mentioned at the example Sater Frisian) does not matter. Deaf people cannot work in most "hearer" jobs. And they don't live in close territories like Bretons, Icelanders or Sater Frisians. Is it feasible? At least the bigger sign languages have enough speakers to adapt to all aspects of life. To create encyclopedias, to create media etc. Is it worth it? Those "anti cochlear" people show that there is a strong identity at least among some deaf people. The "anti cochlear" people fear, that their unique culture will have to face extinction if deafness can be healed. Others would sacrifice this culture for the higher sake of being released from their non-self-chosen isolation.
_In my opinion isolationism is a normal motive for every proposed Wikipedia._
Marcus Buck
Hoi, I wonder how effective a cochlear thingie is. I doubt that deaf people equipped in this way have the same auditory experience as we have. So a cochlear can be understood as a crutch. They help you to move on but it is still painful. Thanks, GerardM
2008/11/23 Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org
Gregory Maxwell hett schreven:
Only that due care is required if we don't want to end up being a tool for isolationism and this is true for all cases where we create distinct Wikipedia communities and is not at all limited to speakers of sign language.
If people like to be isolated, why shouldn't we allow them? It's not Wikimedia's goal to create "one world", but to provide factual knowledge to all people. Even isolated people. Why do we have a Breton Wikipedia? Cause Bretons want to isolate from French. Why do they want to isolate? Cause they are "bad people" who "hate French"? No, cause French dominance destroys Breton. But people want to stay what they are, who they are. They want to stay Breton. They want to keep their identity. Modern society makes it necessary to have a language that enables you to cope with modern society, well, that's nothing else than "to cope with life". If your language doesn't enable you to cope with life there are two ways: 1) create the means that enable you to cope with life in your language. 2) give up your language and the identity intertwined with it and assimilate and integrate into another culture. Languages like English, French, German, Chinese went path 1). Other language, like most of the indigenous languages of the Americas and of Australia went path 2).
Every decision whether to grant a Wikipedia or not, is effectively a calculus, whether the language (and identity connected with it) is _worth_ the effort of being adapted to a life in modern society and whether it is feasible to adapt it to a life in modern society. By the way, when I refer to "adapting" a language, I do not mean lexical or semantical changes or additions (a "constructed standard"). but I speak of resources too. Resources like books, encyclopedias, media etc. Obviously there a few chances that a language with only five speakers wil ever be able to cope with all aspects of life. The speakers obviously have be fluent in another language too and their first language will disappear as dispensable. That's the fate of every language in a perfectly bilingual situation. Morse code doesn't deserve a Wikipedia cause nobody _needs_ it to cope with life and so nobody is interested in making it enable you to cope with life (and actually, of course, it is a script and not a language). Breton _is_ worth being adapted (in my opinion, "worth" of course is always a matter of opinion) and it is feasible too. 200-300,000 people speak it. That's the same order of magnitude as for Icelandic and Icelandic is a full-fledged language able to cope with all aspects of life.
If we do the same calculus for Sater Frisian, with around 1,000 speakers it is questionable, whether it is feasible to adapt the language. It's _worth_ to be adapted (again, in my opinion), but 1,000 people is a tiny community. Iceland has several kinds of industries and it's not too hard to find a good job, where you can work without having to know a foreign language on a near-native level. But in a community of 1,000 it's quite hard to find a job like that. That means almost everyone has to know a foreign language (German in this case) to cope with his job. And as I said above, perfectly bilingual situations are highly instable.
Another example: American English. It's perfectly feasible to adapt American English to cope with life (it's doing that all the time). There are millions of speakers. A Wikipedia of its own would be perfectly feasible. But it wouldn't be worth it, cause the difference to other varieties of English is very small. "Worth" again, is my opinion. There are people, who disagree and believe American English should have a Wikipedia on its own. That's showcased by a recent proposal to create an American English Wikipedia on Meta. It was made by an Englishman. He obviously fears, the American dominance will supplant British English and endanger the British identity.
In the end every Wikipedia was created out of isolationism.
For sign languages we should apply the same calculus. Of course the special nature of sign languages should be kept in mind while doing this. Sign languages do not form close communities. They cannot be supplanted by spoken languages. This for example means that "jobs" (as mentioned at the example Sater Frisian) does not matter. Deaf people cannot work in most "hearer" jobs. And they don't live in close territories like Bretons, Icelanders or Sater Frisians. Is it feasible? At least the bigger sign languages have enough speakers to adapt to all aspects of life. To create encyclopedias, to create media etc. Is it worth it? Those "anti cochlear" people show that there is a strong identity at least among some deaf people. The "anti cochlear" people fear, that their unique culture will have to face extinction if deafness can be healed. Others would sacrifice this culture for the higher sake of being released from their non-self-chosen isolation.
_In my opinion isolationism is a normal motive for every proposed Wikipedia._
Marcus Buck
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Why not read about it first?
Many people interested in the continued survival of deaf culture are very worried about cochlear implants.
Mark
2008/11/23 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, I wonder how effective a cochlear thingie is. I doubt that deaf people equipped in this way have the same auditory experience as we have. So a cochlear can be understood as a crutch. They help you to move on but it is still painful. Thanks, GerardM
2008/11/23 Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org
Gregory Maxwell hett schreven:
Only that due care is required if we don't want to end up being a tool for isolationism and this is true for all cases where we create distinct Wikipedia communities and is not at all limited to speakers of sign language.
If people like to be isolated, why shouldn't we allow them? It's not Wikimedia's goal to create "one world", but to provide factual knowledge to all people. Even isolated people. Why do we have a Breton Wikipedia? Cause Bretons want to isolate from French. Why do they want to isolate? Cause they are "bad people" who "hate French"? No, cause French dominance destroys Breton. But people want to stay what they are, who they are. They want to stay Breton. They want to keep their identity. Modern society makes it necessary to have a language that enables you to cope with modern society, well, that's nothing else than "to cope with life". If your language doesn't enable you to cope with life there are two ways: 1) create the means that enable you to cope with life in your language. 2) give up your language and the identity intertwined with it and assimilate and integrate into another culture. Languages like English, French, German, Chinese went path 1). Other language, like most of the indigenous languages of the Americas and of Australia went path 2).
Every decision whether to grant a Wikipedia or not, is effectively a calculus, whether the language (and identity connected with it) is _worth_ the effort of being adapted to a life in modern society and whether it is feasible to adapt it to a life in modern society. By the way, when I refer to "adapting" a language, I do not mean lexical or semantical changes or additions (a "constructed standard"). but I speak of resources too. Resources like books, encyclopedias, media etc. Obviously there a few chances that a language with only five speakers wil ever be able to cope with all aspects of life. The speakers obviously have be fluent in another language too and their first language will disappear as dispensable. That's the fate of every language in a perfectly bilingual situation. Morse code doesn't deserve a Wikipedia cause nobody _needs_ it to cope with life and so nobody is interested in making it enable you to cope with life (and actually, of course, it is a script and not a language). Breton _is_ worth being adapted (in my opinion, "worth" of course is always a matter of opinion) and it is feasible too. 200-300,000 people speak it. That's the same order of magnitude as for Icelandic and Icelandic is a full-fledged language able to cope with all aspects of life.
If we do the same calculus for Sater Frisian, with around 1,000 speakers it is questionable, whether it is feasible to adapt the language. It's _worth_ to be adapted (again, in my opinion), but 1,000 people is a tiny community. Iceland has several kinds of industries and it's not too hard to find a good job, where you can work without having to know a foreign language on a near-native level. But in a community of 1,000 it's quite hard to find a job like that. That means almost everyone has to know a foreign language (German in this case) to cope with his job. And as I said above, perfectly bilingual situations are highly instable.
Another example: American English. It's perfectly feasible to adapt American English to cope with life (it's doing that all the time). There are millions of speakers. A Wikipedia of its own would be perfectly feasible. But it wouldn't be worth it, cause the difference to other varieties of English is very small. "Worth" again, is my opinion. There are people, who disagree and believe American English should have a Wikipedia on its own. That's showcased by a recent proposal to create an American English Wikipedia on Meta. It was made by an Englishman. He obviously fears, the American dominance will supplant British English and endanger the British identity.
In the end every Wikipedia was created out of isolationism.
For sign languages we should apply the same calculus. Of course the special nature of sign languages should be kept in mind while doing this. Sign languages do not form close communities. They cannot be supplanted by spoken languages. This for example means that "jobs" (as mentioned at the example Sater Frisian) does not matter. Deaf people cannot work in most "hearer" jobs. And they don't live in close territories like Bretons, Icelanders or Sater Frisians. Is it feasible? At least the bigger sign languages have enough speakers to adapt to all aspects of life. To create encyclopedias, to create media etc. Is it worth it? Those "anti cochlear" people show that there is a strong identity at least among some deaf people. The "anti cochlear" people fear, that their unique culture will have to face extinction if deafness can be healed. Others would sacrifice this culture for the higher sake of being released from their non-self-chosen isolation.
_In my opinion isolationism is a normal motive for every proposed Wikipedia._
Marcus Buck
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Good idea Mark... " "a croaking dalek with laryngitis" Thanks, GerardM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implant#Efficacy
2008/11/24 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
Why not read about it first?
Many people interested in the continued survival of deaf culture are very worried about cochlear implants.
Mark
2008/11/23 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, I wonder how effective a cochlear thingie is. I doubt that deaf people equipped in this way have the same auditory experience as we have. So a cochlear can be understood as a crutch. They help you to move on but it
is
still painful. Thanks, GerardM
2008/11/23 Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org
Gregory Maxwell hett schreven:
Only that due care is required if we don't want to end up being a tool for isolationism and this is true for all cases where we create distinct Wikipedia communities and is not at all limited to speakers of sign language.
If people like to be isolated, why shouldn't we allow them? It's not Wikimedia's goal to create "one world", but to provide factual knowledge to all people. Even isolated people. Why do we have a Breton Wikipedia? Cause Bretons want to isolate from French. Why do they want to isolate? Cause they are "bad people" who "hate French"? No, cause French dominance destroys Breton. But people want to stay what they are, who they are. They want to stay Breton. They want to keep their identity. Modern society makes it necessary to have a language that enables you to cope with modern society, well, that's nothing else than "to cope with life". If your language doesn't enable you to cope with life there are two ways: 1) create the means that enable you to cope with life in your language. 2) give up your language and the identity intertwined with it and assimilate and integrate into another culture. Languages like English, French, German, Chinese went path 1). Other language, like most of the indigenous languages of the Americas and of Australia went path 2).
Every decision whether to grant a Wikipedia or not, is effectively a calculus, whether the language (and identity connected with it) is _worth_ the effort of being adapted to a life in modern society and whether it is feasible to adapt it to a life in modern society. By the way, when I refer to "adapting" a language, I do not mean lexical or semantical changes or additions (a "constructed standard"). but I speak of resources too. Resources like books, encyclopedias, media etc. Obviously there a few chances that a language with only five speakers wil ever be able to cope with all aspects of life. The speakers obviously have be fluent in another language too and their first language will disappear as dispensable. That's the fate of every language in a perfectly bilingual situation. Morse code doesn't deserve a Wikipedia cause nobody _needs_ it to cope with life and so nobody is interested in making it enable you to cope with life (and actually, of course, it is a script and not a language). Breton _is_ worth being adapted (in my opinion, "worth" of course is always a matter of opinion) and it is feasible too. 200-300,000 people speak it. That's the same order of magnitude as for Icelandic and Icelandic is a full-fledged language able to cope with all aspects of life.
If we do the same calculus for Sater Frisian, with around 1,000 speakers it is questionable, whether it is feasible to adapt the language. It's _worth_ to be adapted (again, in my opinion), but 1,000 people is a tiny community. Iceland has several kinds of industries and it's not too hard to find a good job, where you can work without having to know a foreign language on a near-native level. But in a community of 1,000 it's quite hard to find a job like that. That means almost everyone has to know a foreign language (German in this case) to cope with his job. And as I said above, perfectly bilingual situations are highly instable.
Another example: American English. It's perfectly feasible to adapt American English to cope with life (it's doing that all the time). There are millions of speakers. A Wikipedia of its own would be perfectly feasible. But it wouldn't be worth it, cause the difference to other varieties of English is very small. "Worth" again, is my opinion. There are people, who disagree and believe American English should have a Wikipedia on its own. That's showcased by a recent proposal to create an American English Wikipedia on Meta. It was made by an Englishman. He obviously fears, the American dominance will supplant British English and endanger the British identity.
In the end every Wikipedia was created out of isolationism.
For sign languages we should apply the same calculus. Of course the special nature of sign languages should be kept in mind while doing this. Sign languages do not form close communities. They cannot be supplanted by spoken languages. This for example means that "jobs" (as mentioned at the example Sater Frisian) does not matter. Deaf people cannot work in most "hearer" jobs. And they don't live in close territories like Bretons, Icelanders or Sater Frisians. Is it feasible? At least the bigger sign languages have enough speakers to adapt to all aspects of life. To create encyclopedias, to create media etc. Is it worth it? Those "anti cochlear" people show that there is a strong identity at least among some deaf people. The "anti cochlear" people fear, that their unique culture will have to face extinction if deafness can be healed. Others would sacrifice this culture for the higher sake of being released from their non-self-chosen isolation.
_In my opinion isolationism is a normal motive for every proposed Wikipedia._
Marcus Buck
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Okay Gerard, just because one British MP said it sounded like a croaking dalek with laryngitis means that it's not a major issue in the deaf community. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying.
I am not saying that all deaf people should get cochlear implants. What I am saying, is that deaf and HoH _children_ are now often given cochlear implants at a very, very young age by their hearing parents, at least in the USA.
If you have been deaf for 20 years and you get a cochlear implant, that will be a very different experience than if you grew up with one. A deaf person can't usually acquire a spoken language as their native language in the same way that a hearing person can; however a cochlear implant at a very young age allows this to happen.
Mark
2008/11/23 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Good idea Mark... " "a croaking dalek with laryngitis" Thanks, GerardM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implant#Efficacy
2008/11/24 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com
Why not read about it first?
Many people interested in the continued survival of deaf culture are very worried about cochlear implants.
Mark
2008/11/23 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, I wonder how effective a cochlear thingie is. I doubt that deaf people equipped in this way have the same auditory experience as we have. So a cochlear can be understood as a crutch. They help you to move on but it
is
still painful. Thanks, GerardM
2008/11/23 Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org
Gregory Maxwell hett schreven:
Only that due care is required if we don't want to end up being a tool for isolationism and this is true for all cases where we create distinct Wikipedia communities and is not at all limited to speakers of sign language.
If people like to be isolated, why shouldn't we allow them? It's not Wikimedia's goal to create "one world", but to provide factual knowledge to all people. Even isolated people. Why do we have a Breton Wikipedia? Cause Bretons want to isolate from French. Why do they want to isolate? Cause they are "bad people" who "hate French"? No, cause French dominance destroys Breton. But people want to stay what they are, who they are. They want to stay Breton. They want to keep their identity. Modern society makes it necessary to have a language that enables you to cope with modern society, well, that's nothing else than "to cope with life". If your language doesn't enable you to cope with life there are two ways: 1) create the means that enable you to cope with life in your language. 2) give up your language and the identity intertwined with it and assimilate and integrate into another culture. Languages like English, French, German, Chinese went path 1). Other language, like most of the indigenous languages of the Americas and of Australia went path 2).
Every decision whether to grant a Wikipedia or not, is effectively a calculus, whether the language (and identity connected with it) is _worth_ the effort of being adapted to a life in modern society and whether it is feasible to adapt it to a life in modern society. By the way, when I refer to "adapting" a language, I do not mean lexical or semantical changes or additions (a "constructed standard"). but I speak of resources too. Resources like books, encyclopedias, media etc. Obviously there a few chances that a language with only five speakers wil ever be able to cope with all aspects of life. The speakers obviously have be fluent in another language too and their first language will disappear as dispensable. That's the fate of every language in a perfectly bilingual situation. Morse code doesn't deserve a Wikipedia cause nobody _needs_ it to cope with life and so nobody is interested in making it enable you to cope with life (and actually, of course, it is a script and not a language). Breton _is_ worth being adapted (in my opinion, "worth" of course is always a matter of opinion) and it is feasible too. 200-300,000 people speak it. That's the same order of magnitude as for Icelandic and Icelandic is a full-fledged language able to cope with all aspects of life.
If we do the same calculus for Sater Frisian, with around 1,000 speakers it is questionable, whether it is feasible to adapt the language. It's _worth_ to be adapted (again, in my opinion), but 1,000 people is a tiny community. Iceland has several kinds of industries and it's not too hard to find a good job, where you can work without having to know a foreign language on a near-native level. But in a community of 1,000 it's quite hard to find a job like that. That means almost everyone has to know a foreign language (German in this case) to cope with his job. And as I said above, perfectly bilingual situations are highly instable.
Another example: American English. It's perfectly feasible to adapt American English to cope with life (it's doing that all the time). There are millions of speakers. A Wikipedia of its own would be perfectly feasible. But it wouldn't be worth it, cause the difference to other varieties of English is very small. "Worth" again, is my opinion. There are people, who disagree and believe American English should have a Wikipedia on its own. That's showcased by a recent proposal to create an American English Wikipedia on Meta. It was made by an Englishman. He obviously fears, the American dominance will supplant British English and endanger the British identity.
In the end every Wikipedia was created out of isolationism.
For sign languages we should apply the same calculus. Of course the special nature of sign languages should be kept in mind while doing this. Sign languages do not form close communities. They cannot be supplanted by spoken languages. This for example means that "jobs" (as mentioned at the example Sater Frisian) does not matter. Deaf people cannot work in most "hearer" jobs. And they don't live in close territories like Bretons, Icelanders or Sater Frisians. Is it feasible? At least the bigger sign languages have enough speakers to adapt to all aspects of life. To create encyclopedias, to create media etc. Is it worth it? Those "anti cochlear" people show that there is a strong identity at least among some deaf people. The "anti cochlear" people fear, that their unique culture will have to face extinction if deafness can be healed. Others would sacrifice this culture for the higher sake of being released from their non-self-chosen isolation.
_In my opinion isolationism is a normal motive for every proposed Wikipedia._
Marcus Buck
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, The proposal is for ASL to be written in SignWriting. This has the added benefit that whatever is actually written can also be edited in our wiki style. The problem with video is that you cannot change it and consequently it is not really Wiki.
Steve Slevinsky is working on an extension that will allow for the writing of any sign languages using SignWriting. I understand that he is even cosidering another skin.. This will allow for much of the user interface to be localised. Thanks, GerardM
That's great, but how do we integrate it into other projects? Are we going to use the extension on every single project just for the purpose of interwiki links (it might have a little more use on commons and meta), or will there just not be interwiki links from projects to a SignWriting wiki?
An extension to have a wiki that uses SignWriting instead of a normal script is one thing, getting it to work well with projects that are in a normal script - interwiki links, CentralAuth, etc. - seems like it would be a lot more difficult.
2008/11/22 Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com:
Just thinking aloud: Until separate projects are implemented for the sign languages, maybe projects on existing Wikipedias similar to the Spoken Wikiproject create videos of the different articles on Wikipedia or the different words on Wiktionary. As I understand the upload limit of videos has been raised recently, so even the bit longer articles could be signed.
The problem is that sign languages are entirely different languages from the matching local spoken language - they're not just a signed version of the spoken language.
- d.
2008/11/22 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
2008/11/22 Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com:
Just thinking aloud: Until separate projects are implemented for the sign languages, maybe projects on existing Wikipedias similar to the Spoken Wikiproject create videos of the different articles on Wikipedia or the different words on Wiktionary. As I understand the upload limit of videos has been raised recently, so even the bit longer articles could be
signed.
The problem is that sign languages are entirely different languages from the matching local spoken language - they're not just a signed version of the spoken language.
- d.
I was gonna say the same thing, but David beat me to it. For an example, we have in the English-speaking world American Sign Language, Australian Sign Language, British Sign Language, New Zealand Sign Language and others – the latter three are related, but they are not related to American Sign Language, which is mostly related to French Sign Language. American Sign Language is not only used in the United States, but also in Guatemala and lots of other countries. Another example is that a version of Norwegian Sign Language is actually used on Madagascar (due to Norwegian missionaries setting up the first schools for deaf people there). So setting up a wikiproject on enwiki is not sufficient – though of course, it wouldn't hurt either. ;-)
2008/11/22 Crazy Lover always_yours.forever@yahoo.com
I realise that proposal for a Wikipedia in American Sign Language has remained without a decision since 2007 february 15th, more than a year and half.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_American... Current policy don't say anything about those: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy But, community draft expressly accept them:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft What about you, do you think wikimedia, should be deprived of these potential resources? C.m.l.
I don't really see a need to expressly allow them – sign languages are just as diverse and viable as spoken languages, and should not need any special designation; but of course, it doesn't hurt either.
The short version of the ASL decision is that we need the technical means to actually make it happen, but once that's in place we're all for it. :-)
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org