ASL is a completely different language from English. Comments like
Uhm, why does that need it's own wiki? Couldn't the videos just be added to en wiki? And also, can't most deaf people (in english speaking countries) read/write english? — Phroziac ... the project would likely cope much better as part of the larger en.wiki community. — Andrew Gray
(these are just a couple of random selections, nothing against either poster personally) could, I think, easily be taken as opposing the basic Wikipedian principle of people's right to access to information in their own languages. Yes, most people whose first and most fluent language is ASL have been educated largely in English (depending on where and when they were schooled this may have included deprecating ASL in favor of "Signed English" and finger-spelling, and may or may not have included acquiring a high degree of proficiency in lip-reading). Regardless of the technical means and organization of a signed Wikipedia, I would encourage people discussing the matter not to use wordings that may suggest that ASL is not a language in its own right, or that deaf people have a less fundamental right to acquire knowledge through their own languages than have hearing people. Haruo
Regardless of the technical means and organization of a signed Wikipedia, I would encourage people discussing the matter not to use wordings that may suggest that ASL is not a language in its own right, or that deaf people have a less fundamental right to acquire knowledge through their own languages than have hearing people. Haruo
Well, the comments are mostly because the person who proposed the new project wanted to include also English language text of the articles, which would basically mean forking. And ASL might be a language, but unless it has also a special writing system, I don't know if it can be created - after all, we do not create Wikipedias for other languages that are only spoken and not written.
On 09/09/05, Paweł Dembowski fallout@lexx.eu.org wrote:
Regardless of the technical means and organization of a signed Wikipedia, I would encourage people discussing the matter not to use wordings that may suggest that ASL is not a language in its own right, or that deaf people have a less fundamental right to acquire knowledge through their own languages than have hearing people. Haruo
Well, the comments are mostly because the person who proposed the new project wanted to include also English language text of the articles, which would basically mean forking. And ASL might be a language, but unless it has also a special writing system, I don't know if it can be created - after all, we do not create Wikipedias for other languages that are only spoken and not written.
We do, however, have seperate Wikipedias for what are, I understand, very closely related languages with seperate orthographies (cf/ Moldovan/Romanian)
It may, perhaps, be useful to consider ASL as a very unusual orthography for a language closely related to English?
Paweł Dembowski wrote:
Regardless of the technical means and organization of a signed Wikipedia, I would encourage people discussing the matter not to use wordings that may suggest that ASL is not a language in its own right, or that deaf people have a less fundamental right to acquire knowledge through their own languages than have hearing people. Haruo
Well, the comments are mostly because the person who proposed the new project wanted to include also English language text of the articles, which would basically mean forking. And ASL might be a language, but unless it has also a special writing system, I don't know if it can be created - after all, we do not create Wikipedias for other languages that are only spoken and not written.
ASL is most certainly a first-class language, but it _must be written_ to be usable in a text-based system like Wikipedia.
There are two main ASL writing systems: Stokoe, and SignWriting. If you can work out how to make either of these (or any other system I don't know about, but is common amongst deaf users of ASL) work with Wikipedia, you've got a good chance of getting a consensus to start a new Wikipedia for ASL as a first-class written language. Otherwise, all you have is the visual equivalent of spoken-word readings of articles in other languages: they may be interesting and even useful, but since they're not interactive and Wiki-linked, they're not a Wikipedia.
Your best bet is probably Stokoe, because it's less dependent on graphic layout. You could _possibly_ represent Stokoe using Unicode symbols and combining character representations, or use the in-built TeX support, or you could try ASCII-Stokoe, or writing a custom plugin for a Stokoe-like Wikitext.
SignWriting is altogether a more difficult problem, as the symbols are not in most fonts. Something could probably be done with a Wikipedia extension that converts some form of TeX-like Wikitext format to SignWriting glyphs, either as rendered .png files, or as SVG.
For an advanced project, you could even consider a SignSynth-like system that would automatically sign written Wiki-ASL.
Are there any written-sign-language experts here?
-- Neil
There are two main ASL writing systems: Stokoe, and SignWriting. If you can work out how to make either of these (or any other system I don't know about, but is common amongst deaf users of ASL) work with Wikipedia, you've got a good chance of getting a consensus to start a new Wikipedia for ASL as a first-class written language. Otherwise, all you have is the visual equivalent of spoken-word readings of articles in other languages: they may be interesting and even useful, but since they're not interactive and Wiki-linked, they're not a Wikipedia.
Would an automatic converter like simplified Chinese/traditional Chinese be possible to convert it to other sign languages?
No. Each signed language has a very different grammar from each other one. American Sign Language and Italian Sign Language, for example, are not mutually comprehensible.
Mark
On 07/09/05, Paweł Dembowski fallout@lexx.eu.org wrote:
There are two main ASL writing systems: Stokoe, and SignWriting. If you can work out how to make either of these (or any other system I don't know about, but is common amongst deaf users of ASL) work with Wikipedia, you've got a good chance of getting a consensus to start a new Wikipedia for ASL as a first-class written language. Otherwise, all you have is the visual equivalent of spoken-word readings of articles in other languages: they may be interesting and even useful, but since they're not interactive and Wiki-linked, they're not a Wikipedia.
Would an automatic converter like simplified Chinese/traditional Chinese be possible to convert it to other sign languages?
-- Ausir Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia http://pl.wikipedia.org
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
In my opinion, the best option is to use sign synthesis software. Each program tends to use a slightly different notation.
However, in the end it should not be difficult for a native ASL signer to learn with a little bit of effort.
The advantage to such systems is that only the person writing the article needs to know the transcription, whereas those viewing the article can view it in transcription OR by computer-generated signing, the latter of which will be almost universally comprehensible.
http://s-leodm.unm.edu/signsynth/ (the avatar is a little ugly, but it serves its purpose) http://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/eSIGN/Overview.html (experimental) http://sy.jdl.ac.cn/en/synthesis.asp (Chinese Sign Language only) http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~waleed/gsl-rec/ (sign recognition, rather than synthesis)
Mark
On 09/09/05, Neil Harris usenet@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
Paweł Dembowski wrote:
Regardless of the technical means and organization of a signed Wikipedia, I would encourage people discussing the matter not to use wordings that may suggest that ASL is not a language in its own right, or that deaf people have a less fundamental right to acquire knowledge through their own languages than have hearing people. Haruo
Well, the comments are mostly because the person who proposed the new project wanted to include also English language text of the articles, which would basically mean forking. And ASL might be a language, but unless it has also a special writing system, I don't know if it can be created - after all, we do not create Wikipedias for other languages that are only spoken and not written.
ASL is most certainly a first-class language, but it _must be written_ to be usable in a text-based system like Wikipedia.
There are two main ASL writing systems: Stokoe, and SignWriting. If you can work out how to make either of these (or any other system I don't know about, but is common amongst deaf users of ASL) work with Wikipedia, you've got a good chance of getting a consensus to start a new Wikipedia for ASL as a first-class written language. Otherwise, all you have is the visual equivalent of spoken-word readings of articles in other languages: they may be interesting and even useful, but since they're not interactive and Wiki-linked, they're not a Wikipedia.
Your best bet is probably Stokoe, because it's less dependent on graphic layout. You could _possibly_ represent Stokoe using Unicode symbols and combining character representations, or use the in-built TeX support, or you could try ASCII-Stokoe, or writing a custom plugin for a Stokoe-like Wikitext.
SignWriting is altogether a more difficult problem, as the symbols are not in most fonts. Something could probably be done with a Wikipedia extension that converts some form of TeX-like Wikitext format to SignWriting glyphs, either as rendered .png files, or as SVG.
For an advanced project, you could even consider a SignSynth-like system that would automatically sign written Wiki-ASL.
Are there any written-sign-language experts here?
-- Neil
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
As a matter of interest, a few moments of Googling finds this:
http://www.mail-archive.com/unicode@unicode.org/msg04506.html
Unfortunately, none of these scripts appear to have been Unicoded yet.
I suppose we could always use the Private Use Area in Unicode until someone gives an official assignment for the characters needed for these writing systems.
In particular note this from http://www.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/info/recherche/taln2003/articles/rocha.pd...
"The ISO Registration Authority has approved in February 2000, as an addition Standard, the alpha-3 code sgn to designate deaf sign languages, with country names added to identify their nationality. Thus, for instance, sgn-FR is the code for the French Sign Language, and sgn-BR is the code for LIBRAS, the Brazilian Sign Language."
In my opinion, XML encodings seem to me to be very undesirable as a way for human beings to encode anything. On the other hand, some shorthand for spatial encoding, similar to the a^b and a_b notations in TeX might be just what's needed.
-- Neil
On 09/09/05, Ros' Haruo rosharuo@gmail.com wrote:
... the project would likely cope much better as part of the larger en.wiki community. — Andrew Gray
(these are just a couple of random selections, nothing against either poster personally) could, I think, easily be taken as opposing the basic Wikipedian principle of people's right to access to information in their own languages.
My point was mainly directed at the "bilingual" idea. If it is to involve a large amount of text in English, which is the impression I got from the query, alongside the ASL... then it makes sense to try and arrange it in such a way as to take advantage of the fact that we have a well-developed, organised community writing that English text at an astonishing rate.
"Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote in message news:f3fedb0d050909110328f83dbb@mail.gmail.com...
On 09/09/05, Ros' Haruo rosharuo@gmail.com wrote:
... the project would likely cope much better as part of the larger en.wiki community. Andrew Gray (these are just a couple of random selections, nothing against either poster personally) could, I think, easily be taken as opposing the basic Wikipedian principle of people's right to access to information in their own languages.
My point was mainly directed at the "bilingual" idea. If it is to involve a large amount of text in English, which is the impression I got from the query, alongside the ASL... then it makes sense to try and arrange it in such a way as to take advantage of the fact that we have a well-developed, organised community writing that English text at an astonishing rate.
I concur, at the present time.
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
On 12/09/05, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
"Andrew Gray" shimgray@gmail.com wrote in message news:f3fedb0d050909110328f83dbb@mail.gmail.com...
On 09/09/05, Ros' Haruo rosharuo@gmail.com wrote:
... the project would likely cope much better as part of the larger en.wiki community. — Andrew Gray (these are just a couple of random selections, nothing against either poster personally) could, I think, easily be taken as opposing the basic Wikipedian principle of people's right to access to information in their own languages.
My point was mainly directed at the "bilingual" idea. If it is to involve a large amount of text in English, which is the impression I got from the query, alongside the ASL... then it makes sense to try and arrange it in such a way as to take advantage of the fact that we have a well-developed, organised community writing that English text at an astonishing rate.
I concur, at the present time.
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.
Phil [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
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.
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
Mark Williamson wrote:
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.
Ok, thanks for explaining that. Is Braille a language or an orthography?
As I noted, American Sign Language is used in parts of Mexico, even though the spoken language there is Spanish.
Ok, so a person who signs American Sign Language from Mexico can understand someone who signs American Sign Language from Rhode Island (to pick somewhere in the US at random)?
I never proposed having ASL to the exclusion of other signed languages... in fact, I don't believe anybody did.
Ok, the subject should have been changed to reflect that a while ago then.
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.
Ok, thanks for explaining that.
Now, to answer your question assuming that by "audible version of their language", you mean the primary written language of their area.
Yes, although I actually meant "spoken language" (since there are arguments about which languages are and aren't written, but I won't go into that).
It was noted earlier that the average deaf American has a 4th-grade reading level (may be different for other countries).
I'm hesitant to accept data from one country where there are other countries which have a better reputation as being leaders in the particular area the data is reporting on (eg. I couldn't care less about data from Iceland on sugar cane production, because Iceland is not known for producing sugar cane). Similarly, I won't accept literacy statistics about the deaf population from the US when there are countries with higher literacy rates. What is the literacy rate amongst the deaf population in Sweden?
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...
I don't know, you tell me? Is software available in Catalan? Or did they have to understand some other language (Spanish? English?) in order to get to the site in the first place?
My point is, how will people who "only understand sign language" even be able to access a Wikipedia in whichever sign language? How will they be able to edit? How will they be able to provide references? Have any books been written in sign language?
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.
Actually, I think you've still failed to answer the *how*, even if you've answered the *why*. The "why do we need a Wikipedia written in sign language" I can understand. The "how will it work", I don't.
Ok, thanks for explaining that. Is Braille a language or an orthography?
Braille is a tactile writing system which is used to write spoken languages. So basically, it's an orthography. Sometimes, though, different languages use different tactile alphabets.
Ok, so a person who signs American Sign Language from Mexico can understand someone who signs American Sign Language from Rhode Island (to pick somewhere in the US at random)?
Yes.
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.
Actually, I think you've still failed to answer the *how*, even if you've answered the *why*. The "why do we need a Wikipedia written in sign language" I can understand. The "how will it work", I don't.
I meant in my other messages in this thread, not my most recent reply. I've given several options for the "how".
Mark
Mark Williamson wrote:
Ok, thanks for explaining that. Is Braille a language or an orthography?
Braille is a tactile writing system which is used to write spoken languages. So basically, it's an orthography. Sometimes, though, different languages use different tactile alphabets.
It could be used as such, but in practice it's usually used as a tactile writing system to write *written* languages. For example, English braille is a direct transcription of written English between alphabets, including all the orthographic oddities of written English; it's not an independent representation of spoken English. It's so direct a transliteration of spoken English that Latin-alphabet English can be transliterated to English Braille by means of a very short computer program.
-Mark
Alphax wrote:
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.
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. Thanks, GerardM
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.
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.
I also addressed the issue of how it should be done. In short, my proposal was advocation of using sign synthesis software, the likes of which already exists.
Yet again I am forced to ask: Is there any existing literature in sign language?)
In American Signed Language, yes. That's if you define "literature" as written only. I personally would include the signed version of "oral literature" (perhaps "manual literature"?), because much more of that exists. However, there is printed literature in ASL. The writing systems used vary widely.
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.
Most people with 4th grade reading levels should be able to connect to the internet.
Mark
Mark Williamson wrote:
Alphax wrote:
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.
I also addressed the issue of how it should be done. In short, my proposal was advocation of using sign synthesis software, the likes of which already exists.
Glad to hear it can be done. I'm starting to think that the easiest short-term solution would be a Mediawiki extension.
Yet again I am forced to ask: Is there any existing literature in sign language?)
In American Signed Language, yes. That's if you define "literature" as written only. I personally would include the signed version of "oral literature" (perhaps "manual literature"?), because much more of that exists. However, there is printed literature in ASL. The writing systems used vary widely.
Glad to hear it. See my reply to the next section though...
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.
Most people with 4th grade reading levels should be able to connect to the internet.
So where will reference material come from? Primarily translations from texts in spoken languages?
Oh, and the next question is: What's the literacy rate of any written forms (as in, something you can put on paper) of signed languages amongst the deaf population? Or are the orthographies symbolic in such a way that reading it is similar to watching someone actually sign?
So where will reference material come from? Primarily translations from texts in spoken languages?
Yes.
Oh, and the next question is: What's the literacy rate of any written forms (as in, something you can put on paper) of signed languages amongst the deaf population? Or are the orthographies symbolic in such a way that reading it is similar to watching someone actually sign?
No idea, but it's definitely very low. Thus the need for sign synthesis.
Mark
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org