The only solution preventing from "reinvention of wheels" I know is to start working with meanings of the questions and collecting all information on any particular topic literally on the same page and having all the pages within same workspace. Ideally, different solutions would be sortable by their ratings like in the StackExchange but also by personal preferences remembered.
In my current situation, PBWorks does a great job for - linking interrelated Topics, - Topic search, - Direct Access to Topics and - Browsing "Visual Taxonomy" currently, we have 30,000+ topics published on LikeInMind. TiddlyWiki section is started very recently and a work in progress: http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/w/page/113574373/TiddlyWiki Visual Taxonomy of the section: http://debategraph.org/Stream.aspx?nid=457381&vt=bubble&dc=focus Relevant PBWorks and DebateGraph pages are interlinked. I would appreciate interest of TiddlyWiki community to this practice of finding/discovery ANY particular Topic of interest within 20-30 seconds measured from an idea generated to a solution found: http://confocal-manawatu.pbworks.com/w/page/102426340/Findability%20Experiment I believe, TiddlyWiki community is capable of designing even better set of tools and enhancing the "findability" of particular bits of information up to it's theoretical limit, see link above. Cheers, Dmitry On Friday, 23 December 2016 04:46:03 UTC+13, Arlen Beiler wrote: > > Given the general concensus, it seems, I've started a proposal at > StackExchange. > > > http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/105326/tiddlywiki?referrer=kk4xS6VP59WB49QQOgt7xA2 > > We need 60 people to follow the proposal, and 40 questions that have 10 > upvotes on them to determine the scope of the site. We should cover > everything we reasonably can but we can always refine it later. > > So follow, and then vote up questions that you think fit the scope of the > site. You can only give so many votes. If a question has 10 votes, don't > waste your votes on it. Find another good example question. Down voting is > not really necessary unless a question has more than 5 votes and you do not > think it should be on the site. > > Also, these are example questions, don't worry about answering them. > > Feel free to add your comments on here, or discuss the proposal on the > page. We don't need to do this real fast, we can discuss it along the way. > > Most of the technical questions on here can be discussed on the new > StackExchange. > > Oh, wait, do we want to call it something else while we are at it? > Remembering the thread about various oddities with the name. > > -Arlen > -- 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 post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/113bd50d-0395-4b80-918d-6b810dbe0f33%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
