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.
No, this is not the case. Signed languages are completely independent languages, with different grammar, vocabulary, and syntax than whatever spoken languages with which they may coexist.
As I noted, American Sign Language is used in parts of Mexico, even though the spoken language there is Spanish.
I never proposed having ASL to the exclusion of other signed languages... in fact, I don't believe anybody did.
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?
"audible version"? What do you mean?? Signed languages are languages completely independent of all spoken languages. They are distinct languages, and are no more "primitive" or "advanced" than spoken languages. Each signed language is a language in its own right.
Now, to answer your question assuming that by "audible version of their language", you mean the primary written language of their area.
It was noted earlier that the average deaf American has a 4th-grade reading level (may be different for other countries).
Also, what about Catalan? How many Catalan speakers with internet access are illiterate in Spanish? Any?? Yet, we have a Catalan Wikipedia, and it's quite large now...
Until these questions are answered, I don't see why (or indeed *how*) Sign Language Wikipedias can exist.
I have already answered both of these questions over and over. By choosing to ignore my messages (and, indeed, those of others, as most of the things I've said have been said in this thread by others as well) as you seem to have done, you are wasting the time of everybody involved -- including yourself -- by asking questions which have already been answered.
Mark