@Walt >>> let's evolve our docs to keep pace with changes in the world... And let us also keep track of those changes, as is easily done in Github. or your choice of SCM.
Well yes, this is what I already do. But the author is advocating for something subtly different: he argues that you shouldn't update a note after it has been added, and instead if you want to expand on or change it, you should add an entirely new note. I'm not quite sure this is the same thing as simply keeping a history. He seems to think that the original chronological context in which you capture a note is an important and defining feature of that note. >>> Unless i am missing something, this seems like a trivial problem today (tho the lack of change history in TW is notable in the world of wiki, it must be said). My post was less about how to technically implement anything, and more just intended to prompt a discussion on this particular way of thinking about note-taking. Personally I don't personally see any particular merit to this approach, but since its good to question your own perspective I want to hear what other people think. On Thursday, 15 July 2021 at 21:10:00 UTC+1 ludwa6 wrote: > @Si, i must answer your Q w/ a Q: Why must it be viewed as a binary > choice? > Bearing in mind the wisdom of Gahdhi > <https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7168430-my-aim-is-not-to-be-consistent-with-my-previous> > [1], > let's evolve our docs to keep pace with changes in the world... And let us > also keep track of those changes, as is easily done in Github. or your > choice of SCM. > Unless i am missing something, this seems like a trivial problem today > (tho the lack of change history in TW is notable in the world of wiki, it > must be said). > > /walt > > [1]. “My aim is not to be consistent with my previous statements on a > given question, but to be consistent with truth as it may present itself to > me at a given moment. The result has been that I have grown from truth to > truth.” > On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 8:18:48 PM UTC+1 Si wrote: > >> I just came across this post: https://thesephist.com/posts/inc/, and it >> challenges a lot of my own views on effective note-taking practices, so I >> thought it was worth sharing here. >> >> The author advocates for a kind of chronological system, where as a rule >> notes are never updated after they are made, meaning that they retain a >> fixed position in time. It kind of reminded me of Soren's random thoughts: >> https://randomthoughts.sorenbjornstad.com/ >> >> Anyway this approach seems completely counter to my current approach to >> note-taking, where I want my notes to represent ideas that I am building >> over time with little regard to where or when they originally came from. >> >> I'm not particularly convinced, but I'm curious if anyone here has any >> thoughts? Do you see any advantages to this approach? Disadvantages? Do you >> think it could gel with the zettelkasten philosophy, or are they polar >> opposites? >> >> Just interested in hearing other peoples thoughts. >> > -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/04de8931-e5d4-4710-a1c4-7e586eb15ac4n%40googlegroups.com.
