[Foundation-l] Signal languages Wikimedia projects

[Mark Williamson]

Okay Gerard, just because one British MP said it sounded like a
croaking dalek with laryngitis means that it's not a major issue in
the deaf community. I think you misunderstand what I'm saying.

I am not saying that all deaf people should get cochlear implants.
What I am saying, is that deaf and HoH _children_ are now often given
cochlear implants at a very, very young age by their hearing parents,
at least in the USA.

If you have been deaf for 20 years and you get a cochlear implant,
that will be a very different experience than if you grew up with one.
A deaf person can't usually acquire a spoken language as their native
language in the same way that a hearing person can; however a cochlear
implant at a very young age allows this to happen.

Mark

2008/11/23 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> Hoi,
> Good idea Mark... " "a croaking dalek with laryngitis"
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implant#Efficacy
>
> 2008/11/24 Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>
>
>> Why not read about it first?
>>
>> Many people interested in the continued survival of deaf culture are
>> very worried about cochlear implants.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> 2008/11/23 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>> > Hoi,
>> > I wonder how effective a cochlear thingie is. I doubt that deaf people
>> > equipped in this way have the same auditory experience as we have. So a
>> > cochlear can be understood as a crutch. They help you to move on but it
>> is
>> > still painful.
>> > Thanks,
>> >        GerardM
>> >
>> > 2008/11/23 Marcus Buck <me at marcusbuck.org>
>> >
>> >> Gregory Maxwell hett schreven:
>> >> > Only that due care is required if we don't want to end up being a tool
>> >> > for isolationism and this is true for all cases where we create
>> >> > distinct Wikipedia communities and is not at all limited to speakers
>> >> > of sign language.
>> >> If people like to be isolated, why shouldn't we allow them? It's not
>> >> Wikimedia's goal to create "one world", but to provide factual knowledge
>> >> to all people. Even isolated people.
>> >> Why do we have a Breton Wikipedia? Cause Bretons want to isolate from
>> >> French. Why do they want to isolate? Cause they are "bad people" who
>> >> "hate French"? No, cause French dominance destroys Breton. But people
>> >> want to stay what they are, who they are. They want to stay Breton. They
>> >> want to keep their identity. Modern society makes it necessary to have a
>> >> language that enables you to cope with modern society, well, that's
>> >> nothing else than "to cope with life". If your language doesn't enable
>> >> you to cope with life there are two ways: 1) create the means that
>> >> enable you to cope with life in your language. 2) give up your language
>> >> and the identity intertwined with it and assimilate and integrate into
>> >> another culture.
>> >> Languages like English, French, German, Chinese went path 1). Other
>> >> language, like most of the indigenous languages of the Americas and of
>> >> Australia went path 2).
>> >>
>> >> Every decision whether to grant a Wikipedia or not, is effectively a
>> >> calculus, whether the language (and identity connected with it) is
>> >> _worth_ the effort of being adapted to a life in modern society and
>> >> whether it is feasible to adapt it to a life in modern society. By the
>> >> way, when I refer to "adapting" a language, I do not mean lexical or
>> >> semantical changes or additions (a "constructed standard"). but I speak
>> >> of resources too. Resources like books, encyclopedias, media etc.
>> >> Obviously there a few chances that a language with only five speakers
>> >> wil ever be able to cope with all aspects of life. The speakers
>> >> obviously have be fluent in another language too and their first
>> >> language will disappear as dispensable. That's the fate of every
>> >> language in a perfectly bilingual situation. Morse code doesn't deserve
>> >> a Wikipedia cause nobody _needs_ it to cope with life and so nobody is
>> >> interested in making it enable you to cope with life (and actually, of
>> >> course, it is a script and not a language). Breton _is_ worth being
>> >> adapted (in my opinion, "worth" of course is always a matter of opinion)
>> >> and it is feasible too. 200-300,000 people speak it. That's the same
>> >> order of magnitude as for Icelandic and Icelandic is a full-fledged
>> >> language able to cope with all aspects of life.
>> >>
>> >> If we do the same calculus for Sater Frisian, with around 1,000 speakers
>> >> it is questionable, whether it is feasible to adapt the language. It's
>> >> _worth_ to be adapted (again, in my opinion), but 1,000 people is a tiny
>> >> community. Iceland has several kinds of industries and it's not too hard
>> >> to find a good job, where you can work without having to know a foreign
>> >> language on a near-native level. But in a community of 1,000 it's quite
>> >> hard to find a job like that. That means almost everyone has to know a
>> >> foreign language (German in this case) to cope with his job. And as I
>> >> said above, perfectly bilingual situations are highly instable.
>> >>
>> >> Another example: American English. It's perfectly feasible to adapt
>> >> American English to cope with life (it's doing that all the time). There
>> >> are millions of speakers. A Wikipedia of its own would be perfectly
>> >> feasible. But it wouldn't be worth it, cause the difference to other
>> >> varieties of English is very small. "Worth" again, is my opinion. There
>> >> are people, who disagree and believe American English should have a
>> >> Wikipedia on its own. That's showcased by a recent proposal to create an
>> >> American English Wikipedia on Meta. It was made by an Englishman. He
>> >> obviously fears, the American dominance will supplant British English
>> >> and endanger the British identity.
>> >>
>> >> In the end every Wikipedia was created out of isolationism.
>> >>
>> >> For sign languages we should apply the same calculus. Of course the
>> >> special nature of sign languages should be kept in mind while doing
>> >> this. Sign languages do not form close communities. They cannot be
>> >> supplanted by spoken languages. This for example means that "jobs" (as
>> >> mentioned at the example Sater Frisian) does not matter. Deaf people
>> >> cannot work in most "hearer" jobs. And they don't live in close
>> >> territories like Bretons, Icelanders or Sater Frisians.
>> >> Is it feasible? At least the bigger sign languages have enough speakers
>> >> to adapt to all aspects of life. To create encyclopedias, to create
>> >> media etc.
>> >> Is it worth it? Those "anti cochlear" people show that there is a strong
>> >> identity at least among some deaf people. The "anti cochlear" people
>> >> fear, that their unique culture will have to face extinction if deafness
>> >> can be healed. Others would sacrifice this culture for the higher sake
>> >> of being released from their non-self-chosen isolation.
>> >>
>> >> _In my opinion isolationism is a normal motive for every proposed
>> >> Wikipedia._
>> >>
>> >> Marcus Buck
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> foundation-l mailing list
>> >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>