G'day Tones, Thank you much for taking the time.
As a career senior systems analyst and now freelance information systems consultant, I appreciate where you are coming from. It just boils down to different perspectives about wiki. I've never liked applying to wikis the kind of rules, constraints, and/or standards (say rigidness?) I've always rigorously applied in database design and software development. That has always felt (TO ME!) antithetical to the spirit of wikis and to this agile mindset I have, very much in line with Scott Ambler's Agile Modeling <http://agilemodeling.com/> and Agile Documentation <http://agilemodeling.com/essays/agileDocumentation.htm> *(and all of the related principles <http://www.agilemodeling.com/principles.htm> + practices <http://www.agilemodeling.com/practices.htm>) in the application of a content / information / knowledge componentization <https://blog.okfn.org/2007/04/30/what-do-we-mean-by-componentization-for-knowledge/> process.)* *(Yeah, all of those links are to some of my favourite reads. They all express, way more eloquently than I ever could, what/how I think.)* Every little word I put in a wiki is a bit, I suppose, like a contract. And every single one can be renegotiated at any time. Interesting discussion*s* for sure throughout this particular Google Group: sure, fantastic discussions about TiddlyWiki, but just as much value in here re cognitive psychology (a buffet of thinking processes/patterns for creating and managing content / information / knowledge.) Such good stuff. On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 12:25:23 AM UTC-3 TW Tones wrote: > Charlie, > > I am all for diversity and different ways about thinking. It keeps the > world rich and interesting and a great source of new and innovative ideas. > Perhaps you take my use of the work lazy differently or too seriously. As > an information and knowledge management professional, I come across lazy > all the time. An example would be not finding the correct place to put > something in a document library, or deciding not to fill in the metadata > when requested, information known to the person, but they "cant be > bothered", then they come to me when they have lost the document or cant > tell which is the most current etc... > > Since the availability of relink, one could always make use of it, to > maintain references rather than develop good naming standards, which > without relink we had to do well, to avoid renames. When we are given > things on a platter we tend to forget how we could go into the kitchen and > make anything we want. Once again it is horses for courses, and what I do > is different to what other people do. If one uses *relink and good naming > standards* then perfect, however we (including myself) can rely on relink > to fix our mistakes, so sometimes I am lazy with my names. I expect others > to do this as well. > > However since now I have highlighted this, I am aware of the possibility > and hope to avoid and overreliance on relink, or degrade my naming > standards. > > By the way humanity is only where it is today technologically, because of > our desire to be lazy in one way or another and as in the book "thinking > fast and slow" describes, there is a real value and incentive to avoid the > "slow thinking", yet we neglect it at our peril. > > Interesting discussion > Tones > > On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 00:35:43 UTC+10 cj.v...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Hence my "do what makes sense for you and what you are doing." >> >> And me not understanding how relink could make anybody lazy. I can't >> think of a use case in which relink could make a person lazy. >> >> >> >> >> If there is information value in remembering (recording) what was and not >> just what is, then do what it takes to not lose the what was. Do the work. >> >> If there is information value in the journey to what is, then do what it >> takes to record and preserve that information (i.e. all the milestone >> steps, whatever versions of whatever, that brought you to what is.) Do the >> work. >> >> If the what was does not provide value, and you don't think it will ever >> provide value, why bother? Same for the journey to what is. Don't do the >> work. That isn't lazy. >> >> If you worry that you might need it someday, then it has value (even if >> just alleviating the worry.) Do the Work. >> >> If you feel like you're life is cluttered by hoarding (the "I might need >> it someday" has become unmanageable or otherwise gotten to an unhealthy >> level), then maybe you need to lighten your load. Rethink your work, and >> lessen the work. That isn't lazy. >> >> Go with what your needs are, and what keeps you sane and happy. Do the >> right work for you. >> >> All of that to say I don't understand how it can make anybody lazy. >> >> It sounds like you are saying you would feel lazy if you did not do the >> things you do. If you did those things sometimes but not others, I don't >> think you would be lazy those times you didn't do those things. >> >> I don't believe at all that you're saying others are lazy if they don't >> do the things you do in certain scenarios. >> >> >> I'm just trying to get a grip on how relink can possibly encourage >> laziness in people in regards to managing content / information / knowledge >> in TiddlyWiki. >> >> That isn't something I understand, and I'd like to understand it. To >> understand that, I learn something new that shapes how I do things myself >> and it gives new insights on how folk might be "lazy" (which sounds more >> like folk not understanding cause and effect RE how they use any tool, or >> follow process, or anything at all related to content / information / >> knowledge management.) >> >> So maybe not so much about lazy, but rather folk not being aware that >> doing certain things can really bite one in the caboose when one is not >> aware of the potential breaking of something, or loss of something. In >> which case: meh, live and learn. >> >> One learns to ride a bike by accepting the potential veering into the >> ditch and whatever bumps/bruises. >> >> I can now replace all of the above with this one-liner: make regular >> backups so that the next bone-headed move doesn't create a whole bunch of >> heartache. Live, learn, enjoy, don't worry. >> >> Entropy, like $hit, happens. Acceptance is bliss. Amount of effort >> within one's boundaries of reasonableness is good. >> >> Unless the work is for somebody else. Than all bets, or many bets, may >> be off. >> >> Everybody desires freedom and flexibility, and everybody is capable of >> forethought and systematic understanding. (Anybody can leapfrog anybody at >> any moment.) >> >> Every recipe does not require the same amount of salt. It depends on the >> recipe, and it depends on personal taste. Some recipes don't require any >> salt at all. (recipe being the need, salt being the amount of work.) >> >> >> >> >> >> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 10:15:51 AM UTC-3 TW Tones wrote: >> >>> Charlie. >>> >>> Perhaps it does not make you lazy, but if for example you use Bombay, >>> then realise its no longer called that, just renaming to Mumbai, Knowing >>> relink updates it everywhere is lazy. Bombay is lost to your wiki. >>> >>> Renaming it then adding a tiddler for Bombay with a connection to Mumbai >>> and even better if you say this occurred in a particular year, then your >>> wiki gains rather than looses information. In this case I am not saying >>> don't rename, that is your prerogative, I am saying be thoughtful when >>> doing so, and sometime the value is not the easiest thing. >>> >>> For example when I write macros and other solutions I already have a set >>> of standard names based on experience and as a result they just never >>> happen to need renaming. I am not hemmed in in any way with my naming >>> standards, in fact I feel I have more freedom in many ways to move on >>> knowing I can find anything I need again from "first principals" my >>> standards again, and I have more times to name where I want. A macro name >>> needs to be remembered, where was it defined, what are it parameters? >>> >>> I have the desire for the same freedom and flexibility as you, but I >>> also am aware of how forethought and systematic understanding is how we can >>> stand on the "shoulders of Giants" or advance our own ideas. The gentle >>> application of constraints (a recent fashion) promotes discovery and >>> creativity as much as seeking "total freedom from constraints" also can. >>> >>> After all, we are all but struggling against entropy. >>> >>> Tones >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 12:45:41 UTC+10 cj.v...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> Well, TiddlyTweeter said "SERIOUS IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE," so I can't take >>>> the kudos for that. >>>> >>>> I can't imagine how relink could make anybody lazy. I want relink to >>>> handle it because I prefer focus on churning the intertwingled thoughts as >>>> tiddlers without the sticks-in-the-wheels, wheels-in-the-mud, that is >>>> getting the title right toute-suite. Good enough title immediately, tweak >>>> to perfection iteratively/incrementally. >>>> >>>> Sure, there may be times, as per one's needs, in which changing a >>>> tiddler title is semantically bad, or bad for link rot, or bad for some >>>> other reason, or a combination of reasons. >>>> >>>> Do as makes sense for you and what you're doing (how you function, the >>>> purpose of a particular tiddler or a whole tiddlywiki). >>>> >>>> - For the great majority of what I do and how I function, tiddler >>>> titles that must never change would drive me off the deep end. >>>> - For some things, I really do not want the tiddler titles to ever >>>> change, because I use (in these scenarios) tiddler titles strictly as >>>> one >>>> would use sequence (or system-generated) numbers for primary keys in a >>>> database. These are very niche organizational/presentation purposes >>>> of >>>> mine. >>>> - For how I function, I can't imagine any other scenario in which I >>>> would want titles to stay fixed-no-matter-what. Bleurk. I'd much >>>> prefer >>>> multiple tiddlers and handy-dandy transclusions to handle implicit >>>> knowledge. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:56:09 PM UTC-3 TW Tones wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is where I think relink can make people lazy. The unique key to a >>>>> tiddler is the title, but it is so easy to change the key, which is a >>>>> powerful benefit but there are a subset of situations where changing the >>>>> key needs further thought. >>>>> >>>>> If relink just "handles it", we may just forget the impact of a >>>>> change, Apart even from external links there is a historical event >>>>> involved >>>>> in Bombay to Mumbai. As Charlie said SERIOUS IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE, This >>>>> change supports my approach which is to avoid loosing information. In >>>>> this >>>>> case if you simply renamed you loose the old name. So if renaming results >>>>> in lost of information further steps should be taken. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps logging renames in a data tiddler that is searchable would >>>>> offer a level of record, so that a search returns something like *Mumbai >>>>> (Bombay)* if this was confirmed, or *Mumbai (Bombay)? *if not >>>>> confirmed. Perhaps we could use Mario's alias plugin or similar tools to >>>>> somewhat automate this. I doubt capturing all title renames even over a >>>>> long period would consume much space. >>>>> >>>>> Tones >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 00:04:14 UTC+10 TiddlyTweeter wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Right! >>>>>> >>>>>> But there is SERIOUS IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE at work knowing that Mumbai >>>>>> IS Bombay >>>>>> >>>>>> Do these transforms inform the user of what is going on an why? >>>>>> >>>>>> Just asking for a friend, >>>>>> TT >>>>>> >>>>>> On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 15:03:34 UTC+2 PMario wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 5:14:00 PM UTC+2 springer wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And as much as you may "choose my tiddler names well enough when >>>>>>>> needed so they need not change in future", renaming a tiddler is not >>>>>>>> always a matter of realizing that you failed to have foresight the >>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>> time around. (My reason for invoking the Bombay to Mumbai change -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think changes like this are easy to handle, without breaking "old" >>>>>>> permalinks. There is no problem if you change Bombay to Mumbai and also >>>>>>> change all links to be Mumbai. ... As long as you keep 1 tiddler named >>>>>>> Bombay. It could contain eg: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now [[Mumbai]] since 1995. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you have a look at wikipedia: >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai ... The first thing it says >>>>>>> is: "Bombay redirects here" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> just a thought. >>>>>>> -mario >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- 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/065d8469-06c6-497d-b140-ca94c4ba66f1n%40googlegroups.com.
