Simply replacing a video will be easier than trying to edit it. There is no
way to mesh video of single ASL signs that is commonly available to all.
Making a picture bigger or smaller does not change its content and
information. To edit the picture, i.e., make it express something slightly
or greatly different from the original, requires it to be replaced in a
The 4th grade level readers (and those slightly above and below) will be
able to find the article on a topic they are interested in by searching
just like any other user. A single or multi-word search is not curtailed by
the users reading level unless they are totally unable to read and write.
The "average" user can then attempt to read the English text if they like
and see the ASL video which they will have a better chance of
understanding. Thus their trip to the article has allowed them to gain
knowledge via ASL and perhaps helped them understand the English text a bit
more via the ASL support provided
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:54:04 -0700
From: Mark Williamson
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia English English
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Irrelevent, how?
See, now, this is just what I've been waiting for since the beginning
of this thread. Our little friend here who cares so much about
"correct" spelling and grammar has fouled up our beautiful language by
using an absolutely incorrect spelling, ignorant of the etymology of
It's "irrelevant". In all English varieties.
That stuff I said about fouling up our beautiful language was a joke.
maybe he meant to say "irreverent" - it fits the context just as well!
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi, antispam, antivirus, POP3
Jack & Naree wrote:
> I would not consider either variation of English to be more or less
> important/relevant. What I consider is practical; how does it impact
> including this content in Ultimate Wiktionary.. Here we have a need to
> identify a word as either EE or AE or ?E and the question is how
> to do this.
> An American-English dictionary, and a (Commonwealth) English
> Dictionary then.
> Otherwise, it has to be all listed as seperate entries.
> Frankly I favour the first option, because to non-American-English
> speakers, the American spellings are simply misspellings.
> How does Dutch, Flemish, and Afrikaans approach this? Do you have a
> separate Flemish wiktionary etc...?
Dutch and Flemish are considered one language. I would not want a
seperate spell checker for either Dutch or Flemish. All Flemish words
are as far as I am concerned as good as any Dutch word. Afrikaans is a
seperate language and it should be truly be seen as such.
> It is up to the Wiktionary comunity how they want to have this.
> They can
> either have it with descriptions in definitions and etymologies
> in one of the used orthographies or it can be considered not to be too
> important and it can be either.
Well, I finally ran out of excuses to keep putting it off. So I've
created a page on meta (
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multilingual_error_messages ) to start
off the process of redesigning the Wikimedia server error messages. I
find it unacceptable that all wikis - regardless of their setup
language - receive the same English language message. We also need to
do things like remove the link to OpenFacts, because that site gets
overloaded within a few seconds of any Wikipedia downtime.
I welcome any comments whatsoever on this project.
On 18/09/05, Jack & Naree <jack.macdaddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>Wikipedia Anglo-Saxon?! Wikipedia Middle English?!! Wikipedia Scot's
> I want Wikipedia English English!!!
I am going to to reply to the original post, since the follow-ups are
American-dialect English (also known as American-English) is more
related to English of the 17th-18th century than 'Commonwealth-English'
is. Neither Commonwealth-English nor American-English are
'English-English' or proper English more than the other; if you want
proper English, look to Shakespearean early Modern English.
By the way, I am an American.
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:37:42 -0400
From: "James R. Johnson"
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia English English
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
When I went to London, I did have to ask what a secre tree was (any relation
to the oak tree?). And a labora tree and an observa tree and a 'lie bree'
and the 'straw bree'... :) Were I able to stay longer, perhaps I would have
And at least we pronounce the 'r' at the ends of words. :)
PS - note that this is a sarcastic e-mail. Don't take it that seriously.
A sarcastic e-mail? That's not possible, americans don't understand sarcasm :-)
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi, antispam, antivirus, POP3
To explain to the people on the Wiktionary mailinglist where this comes
from, there is a huge debate on the Wikipedia-l mailinglist about having
a seperate English and American English wikipedia.
In the plans for Ultimate Wiktionary there are three ways in which words
can be destinguished as being of a particular orthography. I will
describe these here and hope to use the energy of this discussion for
this question that needs a resolution at some stage.
1) English, American English and other orthographies are treated as
seperate entities. This means that all words need to exist for each
orthography/dialect. On the plus side it means that descriptions like
etymology and meaning will be in this one orthography as well. This is
also the most easy method to provide information for a spell checker.
2) We treat these variants as belonging to a specific "spelling
authority". This means that one word needs to be only once in the
database. It means that the meanings and etymologies etc can be in any
of the orthographies.. It means that you cannot record the relations
between the words of these different orthographies/dialects. When words
are properly identified, it means that we can use the information for a
spell checker. It does not clearly help you understand what Meanings
exist in a particular varietion of English. This is in my opinion the
weakest option as it does not allow you to identify which meaning is
true for a particular version of English.
3) We can label Meanings as belonging to one of these particular
orthographies. When words are properly identified, it means that we can
use the information for a spell checker.
In my opinion the number 1 option is technically the best solution.
Going for this option is propably less problematic then breaking the
en.wikipedia.org into pieces. Going for this option seems like a lot of
duplication. It does however provide us with the possibility to be more
precise in what makes English different from American, Australian etc.
Please let me know what you think and particularly why.
Scríobh Phil Boswell:
>I wondered whether it could be possible to create a SignWriting extension
>Mediawiki, along the same lines as WikiHiero, which used SWML as the
>This would at the very least allow us to display the signs in articles
>them, and might provide some sort of kick-start for more extensive usage.
SignWriting looks like the best system as far as intelligibility goes, but
isn't it copyrighted? I mean, I know that the creator has made it free for
use and all (see http://signwriting.org/about/questions/quest0004.html ),
but doesn't that still make it ineligible for use in a Wikimedia project?
It would be like using a special copyrighted ortography for English, or a
copyrighted conlang (Toki Pona, anyone?).
Yet another issue that must be addressed, I suppose.
- Craig [[en:Lankiveil]]
PO Box 764
Ashgrove, Q, 4060
http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art,