Scríobh Neil Harris:
ASL is most certainly a first-class language, but it _must be written_ to be usable in a text-based system like Wikipedia.
I think this is the key here. Do deaf persons in the United States actually write ASL in their everyday lives. A quick bit of Googling and research seems to indicate that there isn't even a settled orthography for ASL, so producing material in a written form seems counterproductive. Half a million people might "speak" the language on a daily basis, but if only 5% of people understand the particular form of notation that is used, it's going to be close to useless for most deaf persons. We might then run into a situation similar to the båkmal/nynorsk, or the cantonese/mandarin fiascos, in which each variant of sign language demands a seperate wiki for itself. If we allow an ASL wiki, then how can we say no to an Auslan wiki, a Gestuno wiki, an ISL wiki, etc.
Sadly, I think that sign languages can, at the present time, be only classified as being spoken and not written. If you can show me a commonly accepted written notation for ASL (that has, for example, 50%+ understanding from those who use ASL as a spoken language), that can be conceivably used on the internet, then I'll be the first to call for the wiki's creation. Unfortunately, I think this is a technical challenge that might not be possible at the present time (since SignWriting, which seems to be the most popular of the written notations, doesn't seem to have any Unicode support).
- Craig [[en:Lankiveil]]
------------------- Craig Franklin PO Box 764 Ashgrove, Q, 4060 Australia http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art, and Culture.
Again, somebody who seems to have skipped over everything I've ever said about signed languages, going months and dozens of posts back.
Whatever.
The part of the e-mail that really struck me, though, was:
We might then run into a situation similar to the båkmal/nynorsk, or the cantonese/mandarin fiascos, in which each variant of sign language demands a seperate wiki for itself. If we allow an ASL wiki, then how can we say no to an Auslan wiki, a Gestuno wiki, an ISL wiki, etc.
1) Bokmål is spelt bokmål, not båkmal. Not that big of an issue though, because people do things like that all the time, for example Jimbo's "Mandarian" or Angela's "Sinetic" (though to be fair, Angela's "Sinetic" e-mail was in response to somebody else who used that erroneous spelling). 2) Perhaps you're thinking of Traditional and Simplified Chinese, rather than Cantonese and Mandarin? As countless native speakers have testified here, Written Cantonese is very different from written Mandarin, it can't be considered a variant logically. 3) Each variant of sign language is the part that really took away a good part of my faith in the human race.
From the Wikipedia article on signed languages: "However, contrary to
popular belief, sign language is not universal. Wherever communities of deaf people exist, sign languages develop, but as with spoken languages, these vary from region to region. They are not based on the spoken language in the country of origin; in fact their complex spatial grammars are markedly different."
Chinese Sign Language and American Sign Language are AS DIFFERENT AS ENGLISH AND CHINESE, if not more so.
In fact, relations between signed languages often offer interesting contrasts to the spoken languages of the areas, for example:
American Sign Language is closely related to French Sign Language, but is completely mutually unintelligible with British Sign Language.
Taiwanese Sign Language is closely related to Japanese Sign Language, but is completely mutually unintelligible with Chinese Sign Language or Hong Kong Sign Language.
Cheers? Mark
On 09/09/05, Craig Franklin craig@halo-17.net wrote:
Scríobh Neil Harris:
ASL is most certainly a first-class language, but it _must be written_ to be usable in a text-based system like Wikipedia.
I think this is the key here. Do deaf persons in the United States actually write ASL in their everyday lives. A quick bit of Googling and research seems to indicate that there isn't even a settled orthography for ASL, so producing material in a written form seems counterproductive. Half a million people might "speak" the language on a daily basis, but if only 5% of people understand the particular form of notation that is used, it's going to be close to useless for most deaf persons. We might then run into a situation similar to the båkmal/nynorsk, or the cantonese/mandarin fiascos, in which each variant of sign language demands a seperate wiki for itself. If we allow an ASL wiki, then how can we say no to an Auslan wiki, a Gestuno wiki, an ISL wiki, etc.
Sadly, I think that sign languages can, at the present time, be only classified as being spoken and not written. If you can show me a commonly accepted written notation for ASL (that has, for example, 50%+ understanding from those who use ASL as a spoken language), that can be conceivably used on the internet, then I'll be the first to call for the wiki's creation. Unfortunately, I think this is a technical challenge that might not be possible at the present time (since SignWriting, which seems to be the most popular of the written notations, doesn't seem to have any Unicode support).
- Craig [[en:Lankiveil]]
Craig Franklin PO Box 764 Ashgrove, Q, 4060 Australia http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art, and Culture.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Craig Franklin wrote:
Scríobh Neil Harris:
ASL is most certainly a first-class language, but it _must be written_ to be usable in a text-based system like Wikipedia.
Where does it say in the goals of the WMF that everything is to be text based? It says that we are "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge." Not even the Wiki principles make it compulsary to be text based.
I think this is the key here. Do deaf persons in the United States actually write ASL in their everyday lives. A quick bit of Googling and research seems to indicate that there isn't even a settled orthography for ASL, so producing material in a written form seems counterproductive. Half a million people might "speak" the language on a daily basis, but if only 5% of people understand the particular form of notation that is used, it's going to be close to useless for most deaf persons. We might then run into a situation similar to the båkmal/nynorsk, or the cantonese/mandarin fiascos, in which each variant of sign language demands a seperate wiki for itself. If we allow an ASL wiki, then how can we say no to an Auslan wiki, a Gestuno wiki, an ISL wiki, etc.
This question is completely wrong. It suggests that ASL is more than any of the other sign languages. Languages that are as destinct as German from English.
Sadly, I think that sign languages can, at the present time, be only classified as being spoken and not written. If you can show me a commonly accepted written notation for ASL (that has, for example, 50%+ understanding from those who use ASL as a spoken language), that can be conceivably used on the internet, then I'll be the first to call for the wiki's creation. Unfortunately, I think this is a technical challenge that might not be possible at the present time (since SignWriting, which seems to be the most popular of the written notations, doesn't seem to have any Unicode support).
- Craig [[en:Lankiveil]]
There are people who want wikipedias in sign languages. They will have to overcome many organisational and technical problems before they will see a functional project. The insistence that it needs to be written is fundamentally wrong; if you were to insist that wiki principles need to be adhered to, it would be more compatible with what we aim to be.
Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 09:49:01AM +0200, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
ASL is most certainly a first-class language, but it _must be written_ to be usable in a text-based system like Wikipedia.
Where does it say in the goals of the WMF that everything is to be text based? It says that we are "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge." Not even the Wiki principles make it compulsary to be text based.
Do you know of any wiki-like system that is not text-based ? It's a very serious technical, not ideological, problem.
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 09:49:01AM +0200, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
ASL is most certainly a first-class language, but it _must be written_ to be usable in a text-based system like Wikipedia.
Where does it say in the goals of the WMF that everything is to be text based? It says that we are "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge." Not even the Wiki principles make it compulsary to be text based.
Do you know of any wiki-like system that is not text-based ? It's a very serious technical, not ideological, problem.
Hoi, No I do not. However I do know that we had a presentation at Wikimania where Wolfgang Georgsdorf broke a lance for Wikisign. A project that would include a wikipedia in a signed language. If anything ask Wolfgang; he is committed to this goal.
Thanks, GerardM
On 9/10/05, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Where does it say in the goals of the WMF that everything is to be text based? It says that we are "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge." Not even the Wiki principles make it compulsary to be text based.
No, but the Wiki principles do make it compulsory to be easily edited. The only alternative for text-based that anyone has brought forward is to use videos of people signing. Using that method would mean that one would have to re-sign the whole article each time one would want to correct a small error. Not to mention that it is a highly non-standardized system. It would be comparable to a system of having a Wikipedia consisting completely of scans of hand-written articles, or of sound files.
If we allow an ASL wiki, then how can we say no to an Auslan wiki, a Gestuno wiki, an ISL wiki, etc.
This question is completely wrong. It suggests that ASL is more than any of the other sign languages. Languages that are as destinct as German from English.
How does it suggest that? I would say it suggests exactly the opposite. If ASL were indeed "more" than other sign languages, then it would not be strange to include ASL, but exclude the others. Exactly because it is not more, nor less, allowing one sign language would imply allowing many.
There are people who want wikipedias in sign languages. They will have to overcome many organisational and technical problems before they will see a functional project. The insistence that it needs to be written is fundamentally wrong; if you were to insist that wiki principles need to be adhered to, it would be more compatible with what we aim to be.
The one implies the other, in my opinion. Craig is showing a problem. You answer "There will be problems to overcome, but that's no reason not to do it." It would be much more helpful to give an indication of HOW those problems might be overcome, rather than shooting the messenger.
Andre Engels
Andre Engels wrote:
On 9/10/05, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Where does it say in the goals of the WMF that everything is to be text based? It says that we are "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge." Not even the Wiki principles make it compulsary to be text based.
No, but the Wiki principles do make it compulsory to be easily edited. The only alternative for text-based that anyone has brought forward is to use videos of people signing. Using that method would mean that one would have to re-sign the whole article each time one would want to correct a small error. Not to mention that it is a highly non-standardized system. It would be comparable to a system of having a Wikipedia consisting completely of scans of hand-written articles, or of sound files.
Andre's analogy with scans of hand-written documents or sound files of articles being read out is a very good one.
Just for the record, I am _in favour_ of starting Wikis for _all_ sign languages, subject only to the normal rules for creating Wikipedias in any new language, _if_ the technical problem of representing and editing them in a Wiki can be solved.
I'm also not against someone making video files of signed Wikipedia articles: but this would not be a Wikipedia, or even something closely resembling one. It might, however, be a valid way of publishing Wikipedia content, in the same way as publishing a printed or audiobook version of Wikipedia content.
I've sent a message to the Unicode mailing list asking if there are plans to encode the written forms of signed languages in Unicode. So far, the answer has been a terse "Yes, there are plans."
We should also look at any possible trademark or other IP restrictions on the writing systems: the term "SignWriting", for example, is trademarked. See, for example, http://signwriting.org/about/questions/quest0004.html, which still seems slightly ambiguous to me. If we were to use it, we would probably want either a more formal grant of GFDL-compatible rights to use the system fromValerie Sutton and the Deaf Action Committee for SignWriting, or a legal opinion that writing systems are not encumbered by GFDL-incompatible restrictions.
We should also take the same considerations into account for Stokoe, or any other writing system we might want to consider.
-- Neil
Stokoe has no copyright restrictions whatsoever.
I'm not sure about HamNoSys.
Ultimately, the best idea would be to store signs in HamNoSys, and to generate SuttonSignWriting, Stokoe, and streaming video on the fly, all of which are very doable. Unfortunately I don't know how to program beyond qbasic -- if I did, I'd be doing a lot more these days.
Mark
On 10/09/05, Neil Harris usenet@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
Andre Engels wrote:
On 9/10/05, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Where does it say in the goals of the WMF that everything is to be text based? It says that we are "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge." Not even the Wiki principles make it compulsary to be text based.
No, but the Wiki principles do make it compulsory to be easily edited. The only alternative for text-based that anyone has brought forward is to use videos of people signing. Using that method would mean that one would have to re-sign the whole article each time one would want to correct a small error. Not to mention that it is a highly non-standardized system. It would be comparable to a system of having a Wikipedia consisting completely of scans of hand-written articles, or of sound files.
Andre's analogy with scans of hand-written documents or sound files of articles being read out is a very good one.
Just for the record, I am _in favour_ of starting Wikis for _all_ sign languages, subject only to the normal rules for creating Wikipedias in any new language, _if_ the technical problem of representing and editing them in a Wiki can be solved.
I'm also not against someone making video files of signed Wikipedia articles: but this would not be a Wikipedia, or even something closely resembling one. It might, however, be a valid way of publishing Wikipedia content, in the same way as publishing a printed or audiobook version of Wikipedia content.
I've sent a message to the Unicode mailing list asking if there are plans to encode the written forms of signed languages in Unicode. So far, the answer has been a terse "Yes, there are plans."
We should also look at any possible trademark or other IP restrictions on the writing systems: the term "SignWriting", for example, is trademarked. See, for example, http://signwriting.org/about/questions/quest0004.html, which still seems slightly ambiguous to me. If we were to use it, we would probably want either a more formal grant of GFDL-compatible rights to use the system fromValerie Sutton and the Deaf Action Committee for SignWriting, or a legal opinion that writing systems are not encumbered by GFDL-incompatible restrictions.
We should also take the same considerations into account for Stokoe, or any other writing system we might want to consider.
-- Neil
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Craig Franklin wrote:
We might then run into a situation similar to the båkmal/nynorsk, or the cantonese/mandarin fiascos, in which each variant of sign language demands a seperate wiki for itself. If we allow an ASL wiki, then how can we say no to an Auslan wiki, a Gestuno wiki, an ISL wiki, etc.
Why should you need to say no to an Auslan wiki, if a realistic request were put forth? The issues should be: can it be done with current wiki technology? And is there a sufficient community of volunteers who are ready and able to accomplish an encyclopedia?
I have no idea how a sign language wiki would work. What other sign language websites are there? Does DMOZ have a listing? The article [[American Sign Language]] mentions two writing systems and says "SignWriting is commonly used for student newsletters and similar purposes." That seems like a good start. Just imagine these student newsletters (do they have websites?) informing their readers about the new ASL Wikipedia. What writing tools, character sets and keyboards do they use?
The Nynorsk Wikipedia, having more than 10,000 articles, is now the most promising encyclopedic endeavor in that language since 1964.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org