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? On 9/8/05, HHamilto(a)doe.k12.ga.us <HHamilto(a)doe.k12.ga.us> wrote: -- signature

HHamilto(a)doe.k12.ga.us wrote: There is no software to support such a thing at present. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

On 08/09/05, Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com> wrote: Surely it would operate much as the various "spoken wikipedia" projects do currently? Though, on reading [[m:Video policy]] I note there are some technical limitations; the 2mb filesize cap would probably come into play for a video of any length. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

I think Commons supports larger video files. -- Ausir Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia http://pl.wikipedia.org

This certainly isn't a gimmick. It's about the status/role of sign language within deaf culture. "Culturally deaf people do not look on deafness as a disability. There is a simple explanation for this: within the community of deaf people, deafness is not a disability but an asset in much the same way it is an asset to be a Navajo within the Navajo tribe or Korean within the community of Koreans of Los Angeles. In short, it is a distinction about language. Since the Navajo or Korean view their language as no more than a social disability within the larger majority culture, so do members of the signing deaf community. They consider deafness a positive trait, because it is tightly connected to other aspects of Deaf culture which they experience as positive. Deaf unity and community is strong. The fact that deafness excludes deaf people from some aspects of the hearing culture further reinforces cohesion within the community." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture A person with ASL as a native language may consider the addition of ASL to English language Wikipedia to be a breach of NPOV (as well as a ignorance of the fact that these are separate languages with their own grammars). Also note that American sign language and British sign language are not mutually comprehensible. Caroline/Secretlondon -----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces(a)Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Mayer Sent: 08 September 2005 23:20 To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] new request for ASL/English wikipedia --- Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com> wrote: I'm a bit confused. What real benefit would there be for a hearing-impaired person watching a video of an article being signed instead of them reading it? I'm not being sarcastic - I'm genuinely ignorant on how sign language is processed in the brain. Is the difference similar to watching TV vs reading a book? One act is mostly passive (watching) and one is mostly active (reading). If that is the case, then this idea makes sense. But if there really is not much benefit between watching an article get signed vs reading the article, then this is just a needless gimmick. Does anybody know if there is current software that can do this automatically? -- mav __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/92 - Release Date: 07/09/2005

That would be a bit silly. English is spoken in quite a few countries: the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, South Africa, India... In these countries, there are several distinct signed languages used: American Sign Language in the US and much of Canada Maritime provinces signed language in Canada (I think??) British Sign Language in the UK Auslan in Australia Indian Sign Language in India. Now, would it be practical to include videos in every single one of these with each article? Also, based on responses to this thread as well as personal experience elsewhere, it seems that the pioneering work of William Stokoe in sign linguistics has not yet reached the general hearing public. The main point of his research was that signed languages are fully developed languages of their own, and are fully independent of spoken languages. They are NOT alternative systems for representing spoken languages (with the exception of a few signed languages constructed specifically for that purpose, but none of which has native users) Now, your question about most deaf people reading and writing English is indeed a very valid one. But then, it's also true that all Cornish speakers are bilingual in English. So why do we have a Cornish Wikipedia? What about the Scots Wikipedia? Why do we have a Catalan Wikipedia when nearly all Catalans can read and write Spanish or French? The simplest answer is that it is the native language for these people. Reading an article in one's native language gives a deeper level of comprehension than reading an article in a language learnt as a foreign language. However, in response to the main request, I'm not sure a video medium is a good idea for a few reasons. 1) Video has high space and bandwidth requirements. 2) Interwiki links are impossible. 3) People may have a problem with the way a particular person signs. It is impractical to upload many videos for the same article, as can be done for the spoken Wikipedia projects. 4) Artificial generation of signed languages is easily implementable, and requires much much much less server space and bandwidth -- the data is stored as plain text, and the sign language is generated by a virtual person as part of an external program (or perhaps a java applet or something). Bilingual medium also seems a bad idea for a few reasons. 1) Deaf people using ASL may have other languages as well. For example, one's mother tongue may be Navajo, but for deaf Navajos, the common sign language is ASL. 2) American Sign Language is used outside of the US, including sometimes in countries where English is not widely spoken. Mark On 08/09/05, Phroziac <phroziac(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

On 9/8/05, Phroziac <phroziac(a)gmail.com> wrote: ASL is not English. It has its own distinct grammar and vocabulary. But I question whether videos of signed language are worth the bandwidth and space required to store them. Kelly

That would be like making a font with every single English word as a separate letter. Not feasible. Mark On 10/09/05, Phroziac <phroziac(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

Phroziac wrote: Hoi, Sign languages are more complicated than just pictures of hands. Facial expressions are part of the language. So making a font is not applicable. By the way, there is a font for "wording". So it is possible to show this text in a font with hands indicating the characters. Thanks, GerardM