[sw-l] Guidelines for Dictionary Editors ;-)

[James Shepard-Kegl, Esq.]

Sexual signs are a vital part of language and apply to human activity.  For
example, imagine translating an AIDS awareness manual into a sign language
without using appropriate signs.  Profanity arguably has no redeeming social
virtue, but signs relating to human sexuality are generally worth knowing
and certainly belong in any respectable dictionary.

-- James Shepard-Kegl






on 10/18/04 5:27 PM, Valerie Sutton at sutton at signwriting.org wrote:

> SignWriting List
> October 18, 2004
>
> Sandy Fleming wrote:
>> I'm sure there are plenty of nice signs we could still keep on entering
>> meanwhile if Stephen doesn't have time to do this at the moment!  :)
>
> Ha! Yes. You are right. I do not want to ask Stephen to program any
> kind of voting system. It doesn't seem friendly, and it becomes hard to
> manage...In fact, I vote against a voting system! smile...
>
> And ratings for dictionary entries gets confusing, because the kids
> find a way to look anyway - ha!
>
> So no extra programming is needed, when it comes to Editor's Guidelines.
>
> I think it is best that in time, the Editors of one country talk
> privately to decide on guidelines for deleting signs and renaming signs
> within their own language...
>
> Meanwhile, everyone is welcome to add signs...
>
> For me, regarding the ASL online dictionary, I would suggest that we
> avoid sexual signs and swear-words...
>
> Does anyone agree with me? There are at least 50,000 signs you can
> still enter, that are not in those categories!
>
> Val ;-)
>
>