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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
