Urban Dictionary ASL Entries Are Mostly Noise
I spend a lot of time correcting people who find Urban Dictionary and treat it as a legitimate source for ASL vocabulary. It isn't. The site is user-submitted slang from all over, and a surprising number of ASL-related entries are either completely fabricated or describe gestures that have nothing to do with actual American Sign Language. I learned this the hard way when a client asked me to validate a signing demo based on a definition I found there. The entry described a sign for "frustrated" that looked nothing like the real ASL sign, which involves pressing your fingers together near your forehead and shaking your hand downward. My client had practiced the wrong version for two weeks before I caught it. That took about 45 minutes to unlearn. If you are actually trying to use Urban Dictionary for ASL research, here is what you need to know before you waste time. First, almost no entry is verified. The platform has no linguistic review process. A definition can sit there for years regardless of accuracy. Second, many ASL entries describe gestures that are actually baby signs, home signs, or just made-up movements. Third, a significant number conflate ASL with other sign languages entirely. British Sign Language, Langue des Signes Française, and Auslan are completely separate languages with their own grammar and lexicon. Urban Dictionary does not distinguish between them. The practical workaround is simple but tedious. When you find an ASL entry, you verify it using at least one reputable source before doing anything with it. The American Sign Language Dictionary by Jean Ann burnt and Robbin Orr is one option. ASLspace.com and sign-lang.fr are better for quick visual confirmation because they show native signers actually producing the signs. I cross-reference everything. If three independent sources agree, I trust it. If Urban Dictionary is the only source using a particular description, I treat it as wrong until proven otherwise.
One thing people miss when evaluating these entries is the difference between a gloss and an actual sign. Urban Dictionary often writes descriptions in English gloss format, which is a transcription method linguists use to represent signs in written form using capitalized English words. A gloss like HAPPY-CHEEK is not a description of a gesture, it is a shorthand notation. Someone reading Urban Dictionary without that background will interpret it as instructions to rub your cheeks while smiling. It isn't. The sign for HAPPY involves a flat hand brushing upward from the sternum, and the gloss is just a labeling convention. I wasted an entire training module once because a curriculum writer treated the gloss as a literal instruction. That cost me about six hours of retaping. Another common pitfall is assuming that every entry labeled ASL is actually American Sign Language. I found an entry recently titled ASL for gay that described a gesture which was clearly a variation of a gender or identity classifier from a different signing tradition. It was posted by someone with zero credentialed expertise, and it had accumulated enough upvotes that several commenters referenced it as authoritative. The real ASL approach for identifying sexual orientation depends entirely on context and facial grammar, not a static handshape. There is no single sign you can just look up for that concept in the way the entry implied. If you want to learn ASL from scratch, Urban Dictionary should not be on your list of resources. Start with Lifeprint, which is Adam Jacobs thorough video archive, or take a class through a community college or gallaudet university extension. Those will give you correct handshapes, orientations, and especially the nonmanual markers that Urban Dictionary entries completely ignore. Facial expression and body shift are grammatical components in ASL, not decoration. An entry that describes only the hand movement is giving you half a sign at best, and sometimes it is describing the wrong half entirely.
My advice if you still want to browse Urban Dictionary for ASL content out of curiosity is to read one entry, note the claimed handshape and movement, then immediately search a second source. If the second source conflicts, stop and ask yourself why a crowd-sourced slang site would ever be more accurate than a dictionary written by someone who has actually studied the language. The answer is almost always that it isn't. I have not found a single ASL entry on that site that was both complete and accurate on the first read.
Get the Full Details
