Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Alphax wrote:
<snip>
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.
Hoi,
There is no "audible" version of a sign language. With an ASL wiki there
is also room for wikis for the other sign languages.
Hi Gerard,
Please read further down the thread, you will see that Mark addressed
this issue already. There is a sizeable number of people in favour of
signed Wikipedias; what remains to be seen is *how* it will be done.
(Edit: I've just read furthur down the thread, where you talk about how
we shouldn't wait for everything to be perfect before we start. That is
quite true, but at present, I don't think that even the basics of a
signed wiki have been worked out. Yet again I am forced to ask: Is there
any existing literature in sign language?)
Oh, and if all these people for whom sign language is their primary
language have only a 4th-grade reading level, how are they supposed to
even get on the internet and contribute to a signed Wikipedia? The last
time I checked, teaching literacy was *not* a primary goal of the
Wikimedia Foundation.
--
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \