This is incorrect. Quite a few websites say it's also used in African and Asian nations as well, and one of those sites is enwiki. Mark

How is it that computer-generated videos are not generally accepted? Their level of proliferation is extremely low, for one, so it's not like they've had much of a chance. Second of all, even though it may not be perfect, sign-synthesis technology is certainly at such a level where it should be comprehensible to anybody. Perhaps rather than asking Kennisnet if they're willing to host content in signed languages, you should ask if they're willing to host over a terrabyte of data for every signed language in Wikipedia. And the further issue that signed language boundaries and spoken language boundaries don't always coincide is a major one. What of ASL users in Mexico? Would it be user-friendly to make them use a bilingual English-ASL Wikipedia? Mark On 16/09/05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM POSSIT MATERIARI ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE

Kelly Martin wrote: Interestingly, though, English speakers are usually not willing to accept synthetic speech when they can have real speech from a real human... ... and yet, the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia]] aims to record hundreds of thousands of audio files to facilitate access for a relatively small community (the blind). Personally I think videos of ASL translations of Wikipedia articles should just be a WikiProject like Spoken Wikipedia. Just like our sound files, the video files would be a translation of a particular revision. When the file becomes out of date due to heavy editing of the article, re-recording should be considered, but since we haven't got very far yet, we are concentrating on recording new articles first. Timwi

Mark Williamson wrote: Mark there are people that have a terabyte in their home computer. Also you make it seem that all these articles will miraculously apear. I am sure that it will take a long time before we have 10.000 articles in ANY of the signed languages. To get there, we need people who are seriously committed to the project. So the problem is not what you make it seem. It is your opinion, yes. But why not have the deaf decide it for themselves. We can start a project that does not have the "ideal" infrastructure. We have done that before with Commons and we can do it again for signed languages. When you make the video for an article in multiple parts, eg a paragraph at a time, the article is modularised and only those paragraphs are replaced that need replacing. I think there are many ways of making it work more easy. I am not going to learn signing, but I will also not make the road to the realisation of a signed wiki unnecessary complicated by insisting on things I am not aware off or that are not for me to decide. Well Mark, let us cross this bridge when we meet it. The difference is that people ARE asking for ASL.

Alphax wrote: We can only do the things we can do. When people have computers that are not able to use particular data, then it is a shame. It is however not a reason not to start new projects. Over time there will be more people who can use this data. Thanks, GerardM

And who are these people? The last time I checked, the high-end computers had 80 gigs. Maybe it's up to 100 or 200 now. But I sincerely doubt a terabyte. As I noted previously, the Sicilian Wikipedia reached over 2000 quality articles within less than a year of existance. That was with one dedicated contributor. Now, according to the mysterious HJH, there are tons and tons of people who can't wait to start building this bilingual ASL + English Wikipedia. If this is the case, I'd not be surprised if it reached over 1000 articles within a few weeks or even a few days, and quickly surpass 10000 as well. This is not the first time you have assumed things about me which you have no way of knowing. Here you assume I'm hearing rather than deaf. What are you making this assumption based on? You've never even met me. So stop assuming I'm a hearing person. And then, you say "insisting on things I am not aware of" -- what is it here that I'm in over my head on? I knew that ASL was used in places other than the US and Canada, when even Mr HJH didn't. I knew about sign-synthesis programs based on autonomous signed languages entry rather than machine translation, when he didn't. Now, I agree that there are ways of making it easier. But sign synthesis is certainly one of them. It saves heaps of space and bandwidth, and you told me deaf people don't like it -- are you deaf or HoH? I can live with sign or speech synthesis if it saves that much bandwidth. It's not nessecarily pleasant or perfect, but systems are being improved, and again, if it saves that much resources, I'm certainly willing to make the sacrifice. You say earlier (in different wording of course) that people with lower-end computers can go screw themselves... well, then, why can't people not willing to tolerate sign synthesis just go screw themselves??? Perhaps what you're not understanding here is that that was an analogy rather than a completely unrelated question that I asked for no reason. Why should ASL be tied to enwiki? It deserves an independent Wikipedia, despite your continued insistence to the contrary. Mark

Timwi wrote: When we decide to experiment and have a Wikipedia project in signed languages, it will be a seperate wiki. It does not have to slavely follow what a particular project has done because that would imply that a signed language is considered less important than the written language. The community of those that sign have a culture that is to a large extend seperate from the spoken culture. When people decide to sign articles that exist in a current project, it means they either "finger" the text or they have to translate the text. With fingering the sign language is not done justice, with translating they should have the room to do a proper translation. A proper translation does imply that the text is not literally translated but that it is rephrased to make use of the best idiom giving the context of the text. It is also expected and respectable to have new articles that do not exist in the written wikipedias. This only reflects the difference of the culture and the signifcance given to other subjects. Thanks, GerardM

Arbeo M wrote: No, no, no! If I were saying 'I think French translations of Wikipedia articles should be a WikiProject like Spoken Wikipedia' everyone would be looking at me as if I were insane. Frankly the gross ignorance about language bursting out of the seams of this thread is very, very disturbing. Cheers, N. -- Nicholas Boalch School of Modern Languages & Cultures Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3420 University of Durham Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421 New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/

Kelly Martin wrote: If every enwiki editor opens a gmail account, we have 2.6 GB * 437,457 users = more than a million GB, or more than 1000 TB. Should be enough (-; Gerrit. -- Temperature in Luleå, Norrbotten, Sweden: | Current temperature 05-09-16 20:29:48 3.3 degrees Celsius ( 38.0F) | -- Det finns inte dåligt väder, bara dåliga kläder.

On 9/16/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com> wrote: It's likely that Ourmedia.org would be able to collaborate with us on this and provide bandwidth via the Internet Archive. There are various issues with a sign-language project, but storage and bandwidth need not be one of them. Angela.