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