A link between two pieces of information. At the time, revolutionary. Obsidian brought that principle to the masses with wikilinks
wiki's with wikilinks brought it to more people than Obsidian does now. Wikilinks is not a very recent thing. 1990s wiki (Ward's e.g) had CamelCaseLinking, WikiPedia (2002) had wikilinks from early on, they were introduced in the UseModWiki code at the start of 2001.
Hi Chris Aldrich, thank you for sharing your great collection of hypothes.is annotations with the world. This is truly a great source of wisdom and insights. I noticed that you use tags quite a lot there. Are you tagging the notes inside your PKM (Obsidian?) as much as in Hypothes.is or are you more restrictive? Do you have any suggestions or further reading advice on the question of tagging? Thanks a lot in advance! Warmly, Jan
Sorry, I'm only just seeing this now Jan. I tag a lot in Hypothes.is to help make things a bit more searchable/findable in the future. Everything in Hypothes.is gets pulled into my Obsidian vault where it's turned into [[WikiLinks]] rather than tags. (I rarely use tags in Obsidian.) Really I find tagging is better for broad generic labels (perhaps the way many people might use folders) though I tend to tag things as specifically as I can as broad generic tags for things you work with frequently become unusable over time. I recommend trying it out for yourself and seeing what works best for you and the way you think. If you find that tagging doesn't give you anything in return for the work, then don't do it. Everyone can be different in these respects.
https://cosma.graphlab.fr/<br /> https://cosma.graphlab.fr/en/
When did this come out?
Appears to be a visualization tool for knowledge work. They recommend it for use with Zettlr, but it looks like it would work with other text based tools. Point it at markdown files to create graphs apparently.
This looks like the sort of standards based tool that would allow greater flexibility when using various data stores that we talk about in Friends of the Link.
<small><cite class='h-cite via'>ᔥ <span class='p-author h-card'>Arthur Perret </span> in And you, what are you doing? (<time class='dt-published'>08/31/2022 02:40:03</time>)</cite></small>
@flancian
Who can integrate bidi links into a larger system, expand in concentric circles, and take them to their logical conclusion — ubiquity across all information surfaces. ... Across Closed Worlds (Chat, Notes, Projects) to Open Worlds (Twitter, Blogs, Feeds) & everything in between The [[wiki link]] is just like #'s and @'s — public-domain innovations in hypertext. But just cause your social app has @'s and #'s doesn't mean people will use it.
This is a fine sentiment, but a networked version of wikilinks is bound to cause conflicts in folksonomies and issues with sourcing and verifiability. The potential for context collapse is potentially too great to have these scale for this type of knowledge production. One would need to have trusted groups to create usefulness. Search at scale for these is likely to be at issue as well.
Are the affordances beyond the local scale really any better than current web technologies? What about the potential effects on the commons?
Bidirectional links are a feature, not a product. Every productivity software will have them in 10 years. We saw this happen already with Kanban boards via Trello. Notion took them. Airtable took them. GitHub took them.
Create a list of tools that feature [[wikilink]] functionality.
Luhmann, by contrast, barely wrote about his Zettelkasten: he focused on his prolific research output, then published a couple small essays about his practices near the end of his career.
It's really really really ironic that, as our knowledge graphs and gardens become more complex, the harder it is to incentivize ourselves to discuss their inner workings with people. It's a lot how we can't explain how our literal brain (and to a cognitive extent, our minds) works. We focus on the output. And so [[We work from terminal components]].
it’s helpful to design our external cognitive systems such that our day-to-day noodling can accrete
So true! But this doesn't acknowledge the fact that tools for thought are not modeled after our minds. Programmers do not have concepts like "the unconscious" or "dreaming" in mind while making note-taking apps. [[All current tools for thought fixate on highly conscious thinking]].
Leaps of insight emerge from prior thought
It's genuinely wild that we're coming to similar/same conclusions but with different mental modes. Matuschak is really keen on the crystallizing "Evergreen note" model. I'm more keen on the fluid-continuous fundamental unit of [[mental contexts]].
Anyway. In my words, this would be called "bruteforcing insight from old material" (which I use in the Ne-Si pairing), or "old works precipitate new ideas and themes with time and resurfacing".
Wikilinks are great because they allow for very easy linking: you just [[link it as you go along]], then the link either works (because someone wrote that node/article/resource already) or you can click through and backfill it. I call this procedure link-driven writing. Whenever there is more than one [[node]] with a given wikilink in an Agora (typical use case: notes kept on a certain topic by different users), the Agora will surface all of them when resolving the wikilink in question.
What if browsers could allow the user to click and choose the resolving resource for a wikilink in much the way that they allow one to choose their search provider? Then one might have the option to choose between the [[agora]] or their own personal wiki for the search?
I gave a talk back in Oct 2019 about #opensource licensing evolution.A good time to reflect about what you want from your software and your licenses.
the style [[entity]]: url could help to make the reader aware of the canonical entity for the talk. this makes it easier to remember/share. That's what I'm thinking of using more often when linking general urls.