Mark Williamson wrote:
On 12/09/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
I can see very little difference between providing [[en:Wikipedia:Spoken Wikipedia]] for those who have a problem with their sight and providing [[en:Wikipedia:Signed Wikipedia]] for those who have a problem with their hearing.
If the idea takes off and a great many articles are converted into Sign Language, and someone comes up with a brilliant way of editing Sign Language in a wiki-like manner, then this material could be used to jump-start a new Wikipedia.
It seems to me that we could get a great deal done using the material we already have, rather than waiting for the requisite wheel to be invented.
I sit ready to be corrected, of course, and I await developments eagerly.
Again, there are many different mutually incomprehensible signed languages. Countries where English is the primary language don't all have the same signed language (British sign language is not even related to American sign language), and American Sign Language is also used in countries where English is NOT the primary language (most notably in parts of Mexico).
Mark
It sounds an awful lot to me like sign language is an othorgraphy, not a distinct language. Having "American sign language" to the exclusion of Auslan, British sign language, et. al. is incredibly US-centric.
Can I ask just one question: how many deaf people with Internet access are illiterate in whatever the audible version of their language is? Any? Are there any websites which are "written" in sign language?
Until these questions are answered, I don't see why (or indeed *how*) Sign Language Wikipedias can exist.