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@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@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@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
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Many people interested in the continued survival of deaf culture are
very worried about cochlear implants.
Mark
2008/11/23 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@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@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@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
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l