Just in case it helps clarify my thinking, at the risk of muddying ... >From Feasibility Study of a Wiki Collaboration Platform for Systematic Reviews <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK82279/#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20key%20characteristics,needs%20of%20individuals%20and%20projects.> :
One of the key characteristics of a wiki is its initial flat structure. > Pages are easily created and are connected to each other via hyperlinks. > This results in more of a *web of nodes* than a hierarchical structure > which allows users to easily customize the wiki to meet the needs of > individuals and projects. So I guess, to me, I see every tiddler (or every granular piece of information), as a first-class node in a web of nodes, from which various information structures (useful contexts of information) can be drawn. If I have a thought, I put it in a tiddler. Maybe categorized (linked to some structure) at that moment, maybe not categorized at all until when I get around to it later. Regardless, I never see a tiddler as bound to any category/structure. Man, this is like me trying to pull my own teeth ... On Saturday, October 31, 2020 at 4:42:02 PM UTC-3, Charlie Veniot wrote: > > Man, this thread is turning into something like crack for me. > > That was awesome, TT. > > Zettelkasten is quite awesome for folk who see everything as intertwingled. > > I imagine for some folk, duplication of information/notes is easier. This > way each copy of a note exists in a structural view/context, entirely > detached (neatly cleaved?) from other contexts. In general, I think most > humans like neat and tidy and hierarchical, without cross-connections or > inter-connections. Essentially files in structured folders. Well, maybe, > rather, people have been conditioned by computers into thinking files in > structured folders. (Chicken and egg problem ?) > > I've never looked into Zettelkasten until today (wikipedia and a few > YouTube videos). I guess I've been organically doing that since I first > started using wikis circa 2006. Cool. > > The only things about Zettlekasten proper that turns me off: > > - the use of (contrived/artificial ?) "ID's" for each bit of > information > - well, they make total sense to me with paper index cards kept in > drawers > - this bit in the wikipedia description turns me off: "The notes are > numbered hierarchically, so that new notes may be inserted at the > appropriate place" > - to me, every note is a first class citizen, so there should be no > hierarchy anywhere except all the hierarchies derived from links > between > notes that form a structure for some information context > - so > - hierachical numbering makes no sense to me for the way I > think/see > - there's so such thing as "appropriate place": all notes are > equally important, so they don't exist in any particular place > (although > they will show up, via the magic of transclusion, in all sorts of > places) > > > - Blathering Me? > > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2020 at 3:50:52 PM UTC-3, TiddlyTweeter wrote: >> >> bimlas wrote: >> >> Zettelkasten >> >> >> Is the brilliant application of a brilliant man's praxis. >> >> A praxis developed on paper where "external brain" was connections to >> zilliions of cards that *never changed position*. >> >> The "network" is in the indices. >> >> Does is expand to *all* people? I mean: is all thinking organised best >> like Luhmann's think brain-external card dynamic? >> >> Maybe? >> >> TT >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/b2bfda0b-3785-407f-98ab-f306c9a25f24o%40googlegroups.com.
