100 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. I have been blogging a long time, and can tinker a bit with code (like a home cook). I want my site to be the center of how I read and write the web. Its purpose is to create conversations with others, who write in their own spaces on the web.

      This focus is exactly why I started blogging some 21+ years ago and why I'm feeling the ache of less frequent postings now.

  2. Sep 2022
    1. Microformats2 so that computers know how to interpret our blogposts,

      Sometimes I wonder if it has to be this complicated. mf2 is neat because it allows the emulation of the featureset of 2007-ish era corporate social media, but I worry that it scares off some of the "my ideal social media would be managed in bash scripts" folks who do cool altweb stuff – or the handwritten HTML people who mostly seem to be detoxing from anything frameworky, I presume because of their day jobs.

      I wonder if RSS feeds are structured enough to do most of the work. I know it feels like backwards progress to the Real Indieweb folks given the origins of microformats and a preference to not duplicate content, but...

    2. WordPress wants to be the Operating System for the Web.

      What is the POSIX of the web

    1. so I save web archive links too as an annotation

      I do a similar thing—everything I annotate in Hypothesis (or simply bookmark with Pinboard) is saved in Wayback. I've considered adding a perma.cc subscription, but $170/year seems a little steep for 100 links/month.

      Grabbing a local Markdown copy of articles to store locally is an interesting idea...one worth considering; thanks!

    2. If you use h., I’d be interested to hear about it.

      I do! 525 annotations since 2012, but I took a long break and only started re-using it late last year. The social part of annotations has been useful for me in a few cases, but for the most part I annotate to get quotes and my thoughts about them into my own Obsidian vault. (I don't use an Obsidian plugin...instead I side-load the Markdown files with a Python script.) I haven't yet added Hypothesis to my blog, but it is on my list of things to do.

      I'll second what Colby said in an earlier comment: Peter Hagen's work on annotations.lindylearn.io has been invaluable in expanding the quality content that crosses my screen.

    3. Some other things:

      • If I visit https://www.zylstra.org/blog/ and content from e.g. this blog post https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2022/09/10-thoughts-after-100-annotations-in-hypothes-is/ has been inlined, Hypothesis doesn't know how to deal with this—it doesn't know that the annotations that apply to the latter can also be layered onto the inlined content at /blog/. This is a minor quibble insofar as you can measure it on terms of mere convenience. Less minor, however, is that if a user attaches their annotations to /blog/, then it will eventually be orphaned (as more posts are written and the now-current ones get bumped off the page), and will never appear in the correct place on the actual post.

      • When people annotate Wikipedia there's a high likelihood that the annotation will become orphaned as the content changes, even though the version that was actually annotated will usually be available from the article history.

    4. has 800 in six years

      public annotations... a vast majority of my annotations are private, as I teach with Hypothesis, have done so for years, and all those comments (with students) are private to groups. and thanks for the shoutout ;)

    5. Despite the social nature of h., discovery is very difficult. Purposefully ‘finding the others’ is mostly impossible.

      This was Peter's motivation to create annotations.lindylearn.io.

    6. H.’s marketing director has 1348 public annotations over almost 6 years, its founder 1200 in a decade.

      Public ones, at least.

    7. Fellow IndieWeb netizen Maya

      We are neighbors! (I started my blogroll by copying yours, so I could be fairly be called your imitator)

    8. Another path of integration to think about is sharing annotated links from h. to my blog or the other way around. I blog links with a general annotation at times (example). These bloggable links I could grab from h. where I bookmark things in similar ways (example), usually to annotate further later on. I notice myself thinking I should do both, but unless I could do that simultaneously I won’t do such a thing twice.

      Many, many, many of my blog posts start their life as annotations that I then cut down or expand. I find that this helps me make sense of the habit of annotation; you make the best use of the tool that's most in your hand.

    1. 4 annotations of "GPT-3-ifying That Last Blogpost"

      This is cool. Something I should consider adding to my own sites. Just for the heck of it.

    2. I think that’s the biggest thing that I take from this: any text should at least hint at the rich tapestry of things it is resulting from, if not directly discuss it or link to it. A tapestry not just made from other texts, but other actions taken (things created, data collected, tools made or adapted), and people (whose thoughts you build on, whose behaviour you observe and adopt, who you interact with outside of the given text). Whether it’s been GPT-3 generated or not, that holds.

      Useful and likely human written texts show the richness of the context it results from, by showing and linking. Not just to/with 1) other texts, but also 2) other actions (things created, data gathering, experiments, tools adapted) and 3) people (that provided input, you look at, interact with outside the text). Even if such things were generated following up those leads should show its inauthenticity.

    3. No proof of work (to borrow a term) other than that the words have been written is conveyed by the text. No world behind the text, of which the text is a resulting expression. No examples that suggest or proof the author tried things out, looked things up. Compare that to the actual posting

      A text is a result of work, next to itself being work to write it. A text that does not show any of the work that led to writing a text is suspect. Does a text reflect an exploration that it annotates? Does it show social connections, include data points, external examples, artefacts created alongside the text (e.g. lists), references to the wider context/system of what the text discusses, experimental actions.

    4. No links! No links, other than sporadic internal links, is the default in the media, I know. Yet hyperlinks are the strands the Web is made of. It allows pointing to side paths of relevance, to the history and context of which the posting itself is a result, the conversation it is intended to be part of and situated in. Its absence, the pretense that the artefact is a stand alone and self contained thing, is a tell. It’s also a weakness in other online texts, or any text, as books and journals can be filled with links in the shape of footnotes, references and mentions in the text itself)

      Relevant links in a text are a sign of the context the text emerged from, and the conversation it is situated in. Lack of such links or references is a potential sign of inauthentic texts (generated or not)

    1. grating to come across people talking about how to create a community for their tech to help it scale.

      This is the wrong way around, positioning the tech corp's perspective as more imporant than society's. It's insulting to position community as a means, similar to talking about users which limits the view one has of people and what they try to achieve to only their interaction with a tool.

    2. Scaling is in our human structures. Artists don’t scale, road building doesn’t scale but art and road networks are at scale. Communities don’t scale, they’re fine as they are, but they are the grain of scale, resulting in society which is at scale. Don’t seek to scale your tech, seek to let your tech reinforce societal scaling, our overlapping communities, our cultures. Let your tech be scaffolding for a richer expression of society.

      The aim of scaling tech is again a tech company's limited view of the world, that should not be adopted by people using a tech tool. Individual acts scale to community to society/culture, but that's a different type of scaling. One through sideways copying and adoption. Not to scale a tool but to amplify/scale an effect or impact. Tech is a scaffold for enriching society, society is not there to scale tech corps.

    3. Why doesn’t tech usually focus on me using it for my communities as is, and rather present itself as having me join a made up community whose raison d’etre is exploiting our attention for profit? That’s not community building, that’s extraction, instrumentalising your users, while dehumanising them along the way. To me it’s in those communities everyone is already part of where the scaling for technology is to be found.

      A tech company's view is often limited to customer audience, and dubs it community. A person's view starts from within the communities they're already part of: how does a tool support (my role in) my communities?

    4. humanity as not only the source and context for technology and its use, but its ultimate yardstick for the constructive use and impact of technology. This may sound obvious, it certainly does to me, but in practice it needs to be repeated to ensure it is used as such a yardstick from the very first design stage of any new technology.

      Vgl [[Networked Agency 20160818213155]] wrt having a specific issue to address that is shared by the user group wielding a tech / tool, in their own context.

      Vgl [[Open data begint buiten 20200808162905]] wrt the only yardstick for open data stems from its role as policy instrument: impact achieved outside in the aimed for policy domains through the increased agency of the open data users.

      Tech impact is not to be measured in eyeballs, usage, revenue etc. That's (understandably) the corporation's singular and limited view, the rest of us should not adopt it as the only possible one.

    1. If you need a site that’s just a single page I think I would use a word processor and do a “save as html”.
    2. Over in the IndieWeb community we were having a conversation about how easy it should be for people to create their own websites (also for small local businesses etc.) Where making the site is basically the same as writing the text you want to put on it. Social media silos do that for you, but out on the open web?
    1. translate those notions into stuff that I can tackle in my own sphere of influence. And to me those then make up the stuff that matters.

      Things that matter are a combination of things of interest plus sphere of influence/action radius. This can bring macro issues into a place where they can be addressed by micro actions that have meaning locally and contribute to the issue at scale. Contributes to the invisible hand of networks. Vgl [[Invisible hand of networks 20180616115141]]

    2. There are loads of small things that matter. That matter because they work towards taking on the much bigger context visible through the macroscope.

      In general w small things the presumption is that they're stand alone. Small things can have meaningfull settings around them, which make a small things contribute to compounding impact. [[Compound interest van implementatie en adoptie 20210216134309]] waar exponentieel effect in emergentie besloten ligt.

    3. the ancient cathedrals and La Sagrada Familia, though unfinished, are meaningful. They are testimony to the community and community processes over generations that built them. Barn raising is way more important than having a barn built by a contractor, even though the result in terms of barns is the same.

      Cathedral building or its more practical and common relative barn raising are expressions of communal effort, and a monument to a community's value/coherence. What a community creates for communal use can be proxy for its meaning. It's a result from community feeding back into community. I've also used the metaphor of mushrooms on mycelium (also comparing orgs to mushrooms)

    4. The process involved in creating something is at least as important as the outcome. The process needs to embody the values that need to embody the result.

      A process has its own value, is its own intervention. Esp in complex enviro where outcomes are unplannable, rather are observed and then attenuated or amplified. [[Waarde van proces versus uitkomst 20031208161249]] If a result does not embody the values of the process, or the process does not hold the values intended in the result it demeans both.

  3. Aug 2022
    1. I consider this a Public Domain image as the image does not pass the ‘creativity involved’ threshold which generally presupposes a human creator, for copyright to apply (meaning neither AI nor macaques).

      I say this, but there's a nuance to consider. I read a post by someone creating their company logo with Dall-E by repeatedly changing and tweaking their prompt to get to a usable output. That is definitely above the creativity threshold, with the AI as a tool, not as the creator. Similarly, NLP AI tools can help authors to get to e.g. a first draft, then shaped, rewritten, changed, edited etc., which crosses the human creativity threshold for copyright to kick in. Compare with how I sometimes use machine translation of my own text and then clean it up, to be able to write faster in e.g. German of French, where the algo is a lever to turn my higher passive language skills into active language use. (Btw comment added to see if that updates my original hypothesis annotations of this article in my Obsidian notes, or if it happens only once when first annotated. The latter would mean forcing annotation and thus break my workflow)

  4. Jul 2022
    1. Harold Jarche looked at his most visited blog postings over the years, and concludes his blog conforms to Sturgeon’s Revelation that 90% of everything is crap. I recognise much of what Harold writes. I suspect this is also what feeds impostor syndrome. You see the very mixed bag of results from your own efforts, and how most of it is ‘crap’. The few ‘hits’ for which you get positive feedback are then either ‘luck’ or should be normal, not sparse. Others of course forget most if not all of your less stellar products and remember mostly the ones that stood out. Only you are in a position to compare what others respond to with your internal perspective.

      The cumulative effect of one's perception of Sturgeon's law may be a driving force underlying imposter syndrome.

      While one see's the entirety of their own creation process and realizes that only a small fraction of it is truly useful, it's much harder seeing only the finished product of others. The impression one is left with by availability heuristic is that there are thousands of geniuses in the world with excellent, refined products or ideas while one's own contribution is miniscule in comparison.


      Contrast this with Matt Ridley's broad perspective in The Rational Optimist which shows the power of cumulative breeding and evolution of ideas. One person can make their own stone hand axe, but no one person can make their own toaster oven or computer mouse alone.

      Link to: - lone genius myth (eg. Einstein's special relativity did not spring fully formed from the head of Zeus, there was a long train of work and thought which we don't see the context of)

    2. At the same time, like Harold, I’ve realised that it is important to do things, to keep blogging and writing in this space. Not because of its sheer brilliance, but because most of it will be crap, and brilliance will only occur once in a while. You need to produce lots of stuff to increase the likelihood of hitting on something worthwile. Of course that very much feeds the imposter cycle, but it’s the only way. Getting back into a more intensive blogging habit 18 months ago, has helped me explore more and better. Because most of what I blog here isn’t very meaningful, but needs to be gotten out of the way, or helps build towards, scaffolding towards something with more meaning.

      Many people treat their blogging practice as an experimental thought space. They try out new ideas, explore a small space, attempt to come to understanding, connect new ideas to their existing ideas.


      Ton Zylstra coins/uses the phrase "metablogging" to think about his blogging practice as an evolving thought space.


      How can we better distill down these sorts of longer ideas and use them to create more collisions between ideas to create new an innovative ideas? What forms might this take?

      The personal zettelkasten is a more concentrated form of this and blogging is certainly within the space as are the somewhat more nascent digital gardens. What would some intermediary "idea crucible" between these forms look like in public that has a simple but compelling interface. How much storytelling and contextualization is needed or not needed to make such points?

      Is there a better space for progressive summarization here so that an idea can be more fully laid out and explored? Then once the actual structure is built, the scaffolding can be pulled down and only the idea remains.

      Reminiscences of scaffolding can be helpful for creating context.

      Consider the pyramids of Giza and the need to reverse engineer how they were built. Once the scaffolding has been taken down and history forgets the methods, it's not always obvious what the original context for objects were, how they were made, what they were used for. Progressive summarization may potentially fall prey to these effects as well.

      How might we create a "contextual medium" which is more permanently attached to ideas or objects to help prevent context collapse?

      How would this be applied in reverse to better understand sites like Stonehenge or the hundreds of other stone circles, wood circles, and standing stones we see throughout history.

    1. https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2022/06/spring-83/

      I've been thinking about this sort of thing off and on myself.

      I too almost immediately thought of Fraidyc.at and its nudge at shifting the importance of content based on time and recency. I'd love to have a social reader with additional affordances for both this time shifting and Ton's idea of reading based on social distance.

      I'm struck by the seemingly related idea of @peterhagen's LindyLearn platform and annotations: https://annotations.lindylearn.io/new/ which focuses on taking some of the longer term interesting ideas as the basis for browsing and chewing on. Though even here, one needs some of the odd, the cutting edge, and the avant garde in their balanced internet diet. Would Spring '83 provide some of this?

      I'm also struck by some similarities this has with the idea of Derek Siver's /now page movement. I see some updating regularly while others have let it slip by the wayside. Still the "board" of users exists, though one must click through a sea of mostly smiling and welcoming faces to get to it the individual pieces of content. (The smiling faces are more inviting and personal than the cacophony of yelling and chaos I see in models for Spring '83.) This reminds me of Stanley Meyers' frequent assertion that he attempted to design a certain "sense of quiet" into the early television show Dragnet to balance the seeming loudness of the everyday as well as the noise of other contemporaneous television programming.

      The form reminds me a bit of the signature pages of one's high school year book. But here, instead of the goal being timeless scribbles, one has the opportunity to change the message over time. Does the potential commercialization of the form (you know it will happen in a VC world crazed with surveillance capitalism) follow the same trajectory of the old college paper facebook? Next up, Yearbook.com!

      Beyond the thing as a standard, I wondered what the actual form of Spring '83 adds to a broader conversation? What does it add to the diversity of voices that we don't already see in other spaces. How might it be abused? Would people come back to it regularly? What might be its emergent properties?

      It definitely seems quirky and fun in and old school web sort of way, but it also stresses me out looking at the zany busyness of some of the examples of magazine stands. The general form reminds me of the bargain bins at book stores which have the promise of finding valuable hidden gems and at an excellent price, but often the ideas and quality of what I find usually isn't worth the discounted price and the return on investment is rarely worth the effort. How might this get beyond these forms?

      It also brings up the idea of what other online forms we may have had with this same sort of raw experimentation? How might the internet have looked if there had been a bigger rise of the wiki before that of the blog? What would the world be like if Webmention had existed before social media rose to prominence? Did we somehow miss some interesting digital animals because the web rose so quickly to prominence without more early experimentation before its "Cambrian explosion"?

      I've been thinking about distilled note taking forms recently and what a network of atomic ideas on index cards look like and what emerges from them. What if the standard were digital index cards that linked and cross linked to each other, particularly in a world without adherence to time based orders and streams? What does a new story look like if I can pull out a card either at random or based on a single topic and only see it or perhaps some short linked chain of ideas (mine or others) which come along with it? Does the choice of a random "Markov monkey" change my thinking or perspective? What comes out of this jar of Pandora? Is it just a new form of cadavre exquis?

      This standard has been out for a bit and presumably folks are experimenting with it. What do the early results look like? How are they using it? Do they like it? Does it need more scale? What do small changes make to the overall form?


      For more on these related ideas, see: https://hypothes.is/search?q=tag%3A%22spring+%2783%22

  5. Jun 2022
  6. Apr 2022
    1. Ton has asked some good questions about social annotation using @Hypothes_is. I've annotated with some of my ideas. I'm also curious what others' practices look like.

      https://twitter.com/ton_zylstra/status/1513219186524368896

      Come give your answers in the margins: https://via.hypothes.is/https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2022/04/three-questions-about-annotating-in-hypothesis/


      syndication links: - twitter - zylstra.org

    2. https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2022/04/three-questions-about-annotating-in-hypothesis/

      Thanks for asking these questions Ton! I've been meaning to spend some time writing up my use cases and methods for this for a while, and your questions have created a scaffold for getting a large chunk of it done in some bite sized pieces. Now I should be able to roll up my answers into an article, do some light editing and be on my way.

    3. 3. Who are you annotating with? Learning usually needs a certain degree of protection, a safe space. Groups can provide that, but public space often less so. In Hypothes.is who are you annotating with? Everybody? Specific groups of learners? Just yourself and one or two others? All of that, depending on the text you’re annotating? How granular is your control over the sharing with groups, so that you can choose your level of learning safety?

      This is a great question and I ask it frequently with many different answers.

      I've not seen specific numbers, but I suspect that the majority of Hypothes.is users are annotating in small private groups/classes using their learning management system (LMS) integrations through their university. As a result, using it and hoping for a big social experience is going to be discouraging for most.

      Of course this doesn't mean that no one is out there. After all, here you are following my RSS feed of annotations and asking these questions!

      I'd say that 95+% or more of my annotations are ultimately for my own learning and ends. If others stumble upon them and find them interesting, then great! But I'm not really here for them.

      As more people have begun using Hypothes.is over the past few years I have slowly but surely run into people hiding in the margins of texts and quietly interacted with them and begun to know some of them. Often they're also on Twitter or have their own websites too which only adds to the social glue. It has been one of the slowest social media experiences I've ever had (even in comparison to old school blogging where discovery is much higher in general use). There has been a small uptick (anecdotally) in Hypothes.is use by some in the note taking application space (Obsidian, Roam Research, Logseq, etc.), so I've seen some of them from time to time.

      I can only think of one time in the last five or so years in which I happened to be "in a text" and a total stranger was coincidentally reading and annotating at the same time. There have been a few times I've specifically been in a shared text with a small group annotating simultaneously. Other than this it's all been asynchronous experiences.

      There are a few people working at some of the social side of Hypothes.is if you're searching for it, though even their Hypothes.is presences may seem as sparse as your own at present @tonz.

      Some examples:

      @peterhagen Has built an alternate interface for the main Hypothes.is feed that adds some additional discovery dimensions you might find interesting. It highlights some frequent annotators and provide a more visual feed of what's happening on the public Hypothes.is timeline as well as data from HackerNews.

      @flancian maintains anagora.org, which is like a planet of wikis and related applications, where he keeps a list of annotations on Hypothes.is by members of the collective at https://anagora.org/latest

      @tomcritchlow has experimented with using Hypothes.is as a "traditional" comments section on his personal website.

      @remikalir has a nice little tool https://crowdlaaers.org/ for looking at documents with lots of annotations.

      Right now, I'm also in an Obsidian-based book club run by Dan Allosso in which some of us are actively annotating the two books using Hypothes.is and dovetailing some of this with activity in a shared Obsidian vault. see: https://boffosocko.com/2022/03/24/55803196/. While there is a small private group for our annotations a few of us are still annotating the books in public. Perhaps if I had a group of people who were heavily interested in keeping a group going on a regular basis, I might find the value in it, but until then public is better and I'm more likely to come across and see more of what's happening out there.

      I've got a collection of odd Hypothes.is related quirks, off label use cases, and experiments: https://boffosocko.com/tag/hypothes.is/ including a list of those I frequently follow: https://boffosocko.com/about/following/#Hypothesis%20Feeds

      Like good annotations and notes, you've got to put some work into finding the social portion what's happening in this fun little space. My best recommendation to find your "tribe" is to do some targeted tag searches in their search box to see who's annotating things in which you're interested.

    4. In Hypothes.is who are you annotating with?

      So far, "Public". I think it is cool that Hypothes.is supports groups, and I get how classrooms or research teams would be good groups. For me, though, not enough of my peers are using Hypothes.is to have it make sense to form a group.

      That said, I have gotten into a couple interesting conversations with public Hypothes.is annotations. I followed a couple more people on Lindy Annotations because of it.

    5. Do you annotate differently in public view, self censoring or self editing?

      So far, no. It might be useful to add a disclaimer footer to the bottom of any Hypothes.is annotation to say that the contents of the annotation might only make sense to me, but so far I haven't found the need to change what is included in an annotation.

    6. 2. What influence does annotating with an audience have on how you annotate? My annotations and notes generally are fragile things, tentative formulations, or shortened formulations that have meaning because of what they point to (in my network of notes and thoughts), not so much because of their wording. Likewise my notes and notions read differently than my blog posts. Because my blog posts have an audience, my notes/notions are half of the internal dialogue with myself. Were I to annotate in the knowledge that it would be public, I would write very differently, it would be more a performance, less probing forwards in my thoughts. I remember that publicly shared bookmarks with notes in Delicious already had that effect for me. Do you annotate differently in public view, self censoring or self editing?

      To a great extent, Hypothes.is has such a small footprint of users (in comparison to massive platforms like Twitter, Facebook, etc.) that it's never been a performative platform for me. As a design choice they have specifically kept their social media functionalities very sparse, so one also doesn't generally encounter the toxic elements that are rampant in other locations. This helps immensely. I might likely change my tune if it were ever to hit larger scales or experienced the Eternal September effect.

      Beyond this, I mostly endeavor to write things for later re-use. As a result I'm trying to write as clearly as possible in full sentences and explain things as best I can so that my future self doesn't need to do heavy work or lifting to recreate the context or do heavy editing. Writing notes in public and knowing that others might read these ideas does hold my feet to the fire in this respect. Half-formed thoughts are often shaky and unclear both to me and to others and really do no one any good. In personal experience they also tend not to be revisited and revised or revised as well as I would have done the first time around (in public or otherwise).

      Occasionally I'll be in a rush reading something and not have time for more detailed notes in which case I'll do my best to get the broad gist knowing that later in the day or at least within the week, I'll revisit the notes in my own spaces and heavily elaborate on them. I've been endeavoring to stay away from this bad habit though as it's just kicking the can down the road and not getting the work done that I ultimately want to have. Usually when I'm being fast/lazy, my notes will revert to highlighting and tagging sections of material that are straightforward facts that I'll only be reframing into my own words at a later date for reuse. If it's an original though or comment or link to something important, I'll go all in and put in the actual work right now. Doing it later has generally been a recipe for disaster in my experience.

      There have been a few instances where a half-formed thought does get seen and called out. Or it's a thought which I have significantly more personal context for and that is only reflected in the body of my other notes, but isn't apparent in the public version. Usually these provide some additional insight which I hadn't had that makes the overall enterprise more interesting. Here's a recent example, albeit on a private document, but which I think still has enough context to be reasonably clear: https://hypothes.is/a/vmmw4KPmEeyvf7NWphRiMw

      There may also be infrequent articles online which are heavily annotated and which I'm excerpting ideas to be reused later. In these cases I may highlight and rewrite them in my own words for later use in a piece, but I'll make them private or put them in a private group as they don't add any value to the original article or potential conversation though they do add significant value to my collection as "literature notes" for immediate reuse somewhere in the future. On broadly unannotated documents, I'll leave these literature notes public as a means of modeling the practice for others, though without the suggestion of how they would be (re-)used for.

      All this being said, I will very rarely annotate things privately or in a private group if they're of a very sensitive cultural nature or personal in manner. My current set up with Hypothesidian still allows me to import these notes into Obsidian with my API key. In practice these tend to be incredibly rare for me and may only occur a handful of times in a year.

      Generally my intention is that ultimately all of my notes get published in something in a final form somewhere, so I'm really only frontloading the work into the notes now to make the writing/editing process easier later.

    7. How do you get your annotations into the rest of your workflow for notes and learning? How do you prevent that your social annotation tool is yet another separate place where one keeps stuff, cutting off the connections to the rest of one’s work and learning that would make it valuable?

      Where

      My annotations broadly flow into two spaces:

      Obsidian

      My private Obsidian-based vault is where I collect the notes and actively work on, modify, edit, and expand them if and when necessary. This is also the space where I'm broadly attempting to densely interlink them together for future use and publication in other venues. If I could, I would publish these all on the web, but I've yet to find a set up with a low enough admin tax that I can publish them inexpensively in a way I'd like them to appear (primarily with properly linked [[WikiLinks]]) while still owning them in my own space.

      I've been experimenting around with using Blot.im as a solution to display them here https://notes.boffosocko.com/, but at present it's a very limited selection of my extant notes and doesn't include Webmention or other niceties I'd like to add. As it's a very alpha stage experiment I don't recommend anyone follow or use it and it may disappear altogether in the coming months.

      WordPress

      My main website uses WordPress. To a great extent, this is (now) primarily a back up location and the majority of the annotations are unpublished to the public, but are searchable to me on the back end.

      I do, however, use it occasionally for quickly publishing and syndicating select annotations which I think others may find interesting or upon which I'm looking for comments/feedback and don't expect that the audience I'd like these from will find them natively on Hypothes.is' platform. An example of this might be a paper I was reading this weekend on Roland Barthes which discusses his reasonably well documented zettelkasten-like note taking practice. The article can be found here: https://culturemachine.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/373-604-1-PB.pdf with the annotations seen here: https://docdrop.org/pdf/The-Card-Index-as-Creativity-Ma---Wilken-Rowan-upq8g.pdf/. To tip off others in the space, I made a post on my site with a bit of a puzzle and syndicated it to Twitter. A few hours later I posted a follow up with some additional details and links to my notes on hypothesis which got some useful feedback from Matthias Melcher on the Barthes paper as well as on a related paper I mentioned by Luhmann, particularly about German translation, with which I have little facility.

      Another recent illustrative example was this annotation on the Library of Congress website about Vladimir Nabokov which was picked up by my website (though unpublished/not public) but which I syndicated to Twitter primarily to be able to send a notification to Eleanor Konik who I know is interested in the idea of World Building using historical facts and uses Obsidian in her work. (The @mention in the tweet is hiding in the image of the index card so that I could save text space in the main tweet.) Several others interested in note taking and zettelkasten for writing also noticed it and "liked" it. Not being on Hypothes.is to my knowledge much less following me there, neither Eleanor nor the others would have seen it without the Tweet.

      Nabokov used index cards for his research & writing. In one index card for Lolita, he creates a "weight-heigh-age table for girls of school age" to be able to specify Lolita's measurements. He also researched the Colt catalog of 1940. #WorldBuildinghttps://t.co/i16Yc7CbJ8 pic.twitter.com/JSjXV50L3M

      — Chris Aldrich (@ChrisAldrich) April 10, 2022
      <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

      How

      Obsidian

      Getting annotations from Hypothes.is to Obsidian is a short two-step process which is reasonably well automated so that I don't spend a lot of time cutting/pasting/formatting.

      I start with an IFTTT recipe that takes the RSS output of Hypothes.is and creates text files directly into my Obsidian vault. The results are quite rudimentary and only include the title of the document, the permalink of the Hypothes.is post, the highlighted text, and my annotation. It doesn't include the tags as RSS doesn't have a specification for these.

      Second, I've set up Hypothesidian which has a much higher fidelity dovetail with the Hypothes.is API to get all the data and even the formatting set up I'm looking for. A reasonably well laid out set of instructions with a low/no code approach for it can be found at https://forum.obsidian.md/t/retrieve-annotations-for-hypothes-is-via-templater-plugin-hypothes-idian/17225. It allows importing annotations by a variety of methods including by date and by document URL. I've also made a small modification to it so that tags on Hypothes.is are turned into [[wikilinks]] in Obsidian instead of #tags which I only use sparingly.

      All the IFTTT annotations will be ported individually into a specific Obsidian folder where I'll process them. I can then quickly use Hypothesidian to import the properly laid out version (using templates) of the notes with just a few keystrokes and then focus my time on revising my notes if necessary and then linking them to the appropriate notes already in my system. Finally I'll move them into the appropriate folder based on their content—typically one of the following: zettelkasten, wiki, commonplace, dictionary, or sources (for bibliographic use). Careful watchers will notice that I often use Hypothes.is' "page notes" functionality to create a bookmark-like annotation into which I will frequently post the URL of the page and occasionally a summary of a piece, these are imported into my system and are used as source/bibliographic information. I also have some dovetailing with Zotero as a bibliographic set up which feeds into this data as well.

      This version which I've cobbled together works well for me so that I'm not missing anything, but there are definitely other similar processes available out there both for Obsidian (with plugins or scripts) as well as for other platforms. If I'm not mistaken, I think Readwise (a paid solution) has a set up for note transfer and formatting.

      WordPress

      As there isn't an extant Micropub client for Hypothes.is I initially used RSS as a transport layer to get my notes from Hypothes.is into WordPress. The fidelity isn't great in part because RSS doesn't include any tags. To get some slightly better presentation I set up a workflow using RSS output from Hypothes.is as input into an IFTTT workflow which outputs to a webhook that stands in as a Micropub client targeting my websites Micropub server. Some of the display on my site is assisted by using the Post Kinds plugin, which I know you've been working around yourself. The details may be above some, but I've outlined most of the broad strokes of how this is done in a tutorial at https://boffosocko.com/2020/01/21/using-ifttt-to-syndicate-pesos-content-from-social-services-to-wordpress-using-micropub/. In that example, I use the service Pocket as an example, but Hypothes.is specific information could easily be swapped out on a 1-1 basis.

      A custom stand-alone or even an integrated micropub client for Hypothes.is would be a fantastic project if someone wanted to dig into the details and dovetail it with the Hypothes.is API.

      Why

      Ideally, I'm hoping that small pieces loosely joined and IndieWeb building blocks will allow me to use the tools and have the patterns I'm looking for, without a lot of work, so that I can easily make annotations with Hypothes.is but have and share (POSSE) my content on my own site in a way that works much the way many IndieWeb sites dovetail with Twitter or Mastodon.

      I'm doing some portions of it manually at present, without a lot of overhead, but it would be fun to see someone add micropub and webmention capabilities to Hypothes.is or other IndieWeb building blocks. (I suspect it won't be Hypothes.is themselves as their team is very small and they're already spread thin on multiple other mission critical projects.)

      In the end, I'm using Hypothes.is as a well designed and convenient tool for quickly making notes on digital documents. All the data is flowing to one of two other locations where I'm actually making use of it. While there is some social layer there, I'm getting email notifications through the Hypothes.is settings and the data from my responses just gets rolled back into my spaces which I try to keep open and IndieWeb friendly by default. At the same time, for those who want or need it, Hypothes.is' interface is a great way of reading, searching, sorting, and interacting with my notes in public, particularly until I get something specific and user friendly up to do it on my own domain.

    8. Tools like Hypothes.is are designed as silos to ensure that its social features work.

      As open source as Hypothes.is is, I do wish that it had some additional open IndieWeb building blocks to keep it from being a silo.

      Sadly, I've never had the time, nor the technical expertise and facility with their code to implement the pieces, but I have outlined a bit of what might be done to make the platform a bit less silo-like: https://boffosocko.com/2019/04/08/ideas-for-indieweb-ifying-hypothes-is/

      Fortunately it is open enough for me in other respects that I can bend portions of it to my will and needs beyond what it offers a la carte.

    9. Where annotation is not an individual activity, jotting down marginalia in solitude, but a dialogue between multiple annotators in the now, or incrementally adding to annotators from the past.

      My first view, even before any of the potential social annotation angle, is that in annotating or taking notes, I'm simultaneously having a conversation with the author of the work and/or my own thoughts on the topic at hand. Anything beyond that for me is "gravy".

      I occasionally find that if I'm writing as I go that I'll have questions and take a stab only to find that the author provides an answer a few paragraphs or pages on. I can then look back at my thought to see where I got things right, where I may have missed or where to go from there. Sometimes I'll find holes that both the author and I missed. Almost always I'm glad that I spent the time thinking about the idea critically and got to the place myself with or without the author's help. I'm not sure that most others always do this, but it's a habit I've picked up from reading mathematics texts which frequently say things like "we'll leave it to the reader to verify or fill in the gaps" or "this is left as an exercise". Most readers won't/don't do this, but my view is that it's almost always where the actual engagement and learning from the material stems.

      Sometimes I may be writing out pieces to clarify them for myself and solidify my understanding while other times, I'm using the text as a prompt for my own writing. My intention most often is to add my own thoughts in a significantly well-thought out manner such that I can in the near future reuse these annotations/notes in essays or other writing. Some of this comes from broad experience of keeping a commonplace book for quite a while, and some of it has been influenced on reading about the history of note taking practices by others. One of the best summations of the overall practice I've seen thus far is Sönke Ahrens' How to Take Smart Notes (Create Space, 2017), though I find there are some practical steps missing that can only be found by actually practicing his methods in a dedicated fashion for several months before one sees changes in their thought patterns, the questions they ask, and the work that stems from it all. And by work, I mean just that. The whole enterprise is a fair amount of work, though I find it quite fun and very productive over time.

      In my youth, I'd read passages and come up with some brilliant ideas. I might have underlined the passage and written something like "revisit this and expand", but I found I almost never did and upon revisiting it I couldn't capture the spark of the brilliant idea I had managed to see before. Now I just take the time out to write out the entire thing then and there with the knowledge that I can then later revise it and work it into something bigger later. Doing the work right now has been one of the biggest differences in my practice, and I'm finding that projects I want to make progress on are moving forward much more rapidly than they ever did.

  7. Dec 2021
  8. Nov 2021
    1. If you (like I am at times) are an event organiser, is it necessary to plan ahead for a ‘back-channel experience‘ taking into account accessibility, avoiding silo’s and tracking, with which to add to what it is like to attend your event? Or will the idea of a back-channel be let go entirely, reducing all of us to more singular members of an audience?

      I like the idea of designing the types of conference experiences that I'd like to have, rather than what participants have come to expect.

    2. I don’t see something else naturally taking its place either.

      I like the idea of Discord as a backchannel but it suffers from the problem that it's a relatively niche app, and no-one is going to install and learn how to use it just for a conference.

      I think that Discord would work well for a learning community though.

  9. Oct 2021
    1. Especially going through presentations is a rich source of notes

      For me, presentations represent a well-organised set of concepts that I'm familiar with, and that are relatively well-connected to other ideas.

    1. interfaces are queries

      I have a sense of what this might mean but I have a hard time conceptualising how I might implement it.

    1. switch between workspaces at will

      This is something I still haven't got around to in Obsidian. The only use case I can think of that might help with my workflow is when I'm doing a weekly or monthly review. But it only takes me a couple of seconds to open the notes I need for that anyway.

    1. there’s no mobile Obsidian app, and there’s no need for it either, any plain text editor will do after all.

      Obsidian has since released a mobile app, with a paid-for sync service. I was using Dropbox to sync my notes between devices but had paid for the Obsidian sync service to test it. It works well but I hardly do any work on my phone, so it's not clear to me what the use case is. I probably won't renew my subscription and will go back to syncing with Dropbox.

    2. being able to quickly switch between the task list and the resources needed for a task

      I tried Todoist, which aims to bring the resources into the to do list. It started as a to do list that you can organise into projects, and then added notes and attachments to items. I decided to go all in for a year, paid for the premium service, and put everything into Todoist. But it didn't work for me because my to do list was still separated from the rest of the work I was trying to do.

    1. Collating is done by transcluding 7 day logs into one note.

      I use transclusion in Obsidian for my weekly review. The weekly review note (also defined with a template), has a section that gives me an overview of my week.

    2. During the day I add activities to the log as I’m doing them. I also mention thoughts or concerns, how I think the day goes etc. I link/mention the notes corresponding to activities, e.g. things I wrote down in a project meeting. I started keeping day logs last April, and they are useful to help me see on days that seem unfocused what I actually did do, even if it felt I didn’t do much.

      I only ever diaries for keeping track of appointments, but the concept of a daily note (that I define with a template) has been enormously helpful for me to structure my day.

    3. Each project e.g. has a ‘main’ note stating the projects planned results, to which goal(s) it contributes, main stakeholders, budget and rough timeline.

      My project 'overview' note includes headings like: Admin (meeting dates, etc.), people involved deadlines, related notes. Each of these other parts is a separate page, linked to with wikilinks.

    4. Within each area there are projects, specific things I’m working on. Projects all have their own folder in an Area. Some of the projects may have subfolders for (sub)projects taking place within the context of a client assignment for instance.

      I have Project pages in Obsidian, with sub-projects that are separate pages, linked to the main project page with wikilinks. I do it that way so that I don't need to worry about folders. But now I'm wondering if a folder/project would be a way to compartmentalise things.

    1. I do not use plugins that are supposed to help you create notes (e.g. the existing Zettelkasten and Day log plugin), because they make assumptions about how to create notes (how to name them, which links to create in them). I created my own workflow for creating notes to avoid functionality lock-in in Obsidian: day logs are created manually by keyboard shortcuts using Alfred (previously TextExpander), as are the timestamps I use to create unique file names for notes.

      I agree with this in principle. However, the process of using the core Obsidian plugins to create Daily notes with templates is so simple that you could easily swap out the plugin with a manual plain text alternative.

    2. On the tool side of that evaluation, I want to get rid of Evernote (as a silo and single point of failure) since some years.

      I've been thinking about this under the frame of, "The more time I spend with a tool, the easier it should be to leave it". What I mean by this is, the more I invest in something (time, cognitive energy), the more reliable it needs to be. Since nothing is completely reliable, I need to choose a tool that allows me to move to another tool without any friction. I don't want the tool I'm using today to be bought out and shuttered by another company, so I have to work in formats that make it easy to adapt.

  10. Aug 2021
  11. May 2021
    1. he is focusing on the tensions that what he read causes with other things he knows and has read. He’s not just lifting things out that chime with him, but the things that cause friction. Because in that friction lies the potential of learning.

      Dissonance of juxtaposed ideas, and particularly those just at the edge of chaos, can be some of the most fruitful places for learning.

      Attempting to resolve these frictions can generate new knowledge.

      This is what commonplace books are meant to do. Record this knowledge, allow one to juxtapose, and to think and write into new spaces.

      It's also important to look more closely at things that don't cause dissonance. Is it general wisdom that makes them true or seem true? Question the assumptions underneath them. Where do they come from? Why do they seem comfortable? How could one make them uncomfortable. Questioning assumptions can lead to new pathways.

      An example of this is the questioning the final assumption of Euclid (the "ugly" one) which led mathematicians into different geometry systems.

    1. This is a solidly comprehensive overview of much of what I'd want in my own personal reader. I'll have to revisit it as I'm reading and using other readers to see if there are any other pieces missing.

      Being able to sort by social distance, by community/tags, and by posting frequency and/or post type (ie separating articles from notes from bookmarks, etc) would be some of the bigger must haves.

    1. Inclusion however is a concept in OPML: I can add a list as a new branch in another list. If you do that once you only clone a list, and go your own seperate way again. You could also do it dynamically, where you always re-import the other list into your own. Doing it dynamically is a de-facto subscription. For both however, changes in the imported list are non-obvious.

      When this is done with RSS, you have what is known as OPML subscription. Some feed readers like Inoreader let you subscribe to someone's OPML list of RSS feeds which means your feed reader will autoupdate to show you new feeds from the list you've subscribed to.

      Ha! I'm noticing you mention it in the next section! :)

    1. A similar tool Foam is. Foam is currently not far enough along their path of development to my taste, but will get there, and I will certainly explore making the switch.

      Potentially even better, it may be the case that Foam comes up to speed and potentially offers some slightly different but useful functionality using the same data source. Then one could keep the files in one's own space and use Obsidian, Foam, or even other tools to access and work with it.

    1. I really need to delve back into some of the plugins and test out using them more frequently. The workspace one I tried briefly when it first came out, but it had a few problems for me which are now likely fixed.

    1. Thanks for an awesome post. I think that I have quite similar ideas to how you think about notes and note-taking, although the terminology is different. But even so, you raised several points that were not only linked to my own thinking, but gave me new thoughts and ideas to work with. Cheers for that.

      I was just about to ask you what your system looked like Michael, but then I realized that you've tucked many of them into Hypothes.is at https://via.hypothes.is/https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2020/11/100-days-in-obsidian-pt-4-writing-notes/

    2. Ton delineates his ideas between notions, notes, ideas, and work notes. It's not too dissimilar to the ideas others like Maggie Appleton have written about various smaller pieces being built up from small "seedlings" into larger evergreen pieces within a digital gardens framing.

      I do like the idea of emergent outlines he notes over Ahrens' speculative outlines.

    1. I started using Obsidian to make better notes (Notions as I call them), and link them together where I see relevance.

      Interesting that there is also a silo version of Obsidian called Notion, which is also similar to Evernote. I wonder if this had any influence on your name? This is a reasonable indicator that it's a good name for these.

    1. I love the phrase "elephant paths" (the correct translation?) for maps of content.

      I also like the idea of having a set up for doing digital captures of physical notebook pages. I'll have to consider how to do this most easily. I should also look back and evaluate how to continue improving my digital process as well.

  12. Dec 2020
    1. A blogpost from a year ago and one from last month turned out to be dealing with the same notions, and I remember them both, but hadn’t yet perceived them as a sequence or as the later post being a possible answer to the earlier post.

      I've sometimes noticed this kind of connection in my own thinking, when revisiting an old post and realising that it's connected (sometimes very powerfully) with what's going on with me currently. I had just forgotten that I used to think about these ideas.

    2. Only doing responsive writing based on daily RSS feed input feels too empty in comparison

      This is why I stopped doing something similar i.e. writing short-form comments on posts that appeared in my RSS reader. I suppose it may have served a purpose in that I could have been surfacing potentially interesting information for others, along with a short comment on why I thought it was interesting. But it didn't leave me with much of a feeling of satisfaction.

    3. This in order to build a better thinking aid, by having an easy accessible collection of my own ideas and concepts, and interesting viewpoints and perspectives of others (and references). It isn’t about collecting factual info.

      I hear this completely, as it's something that I've been thinking about as well. However, I went the other way, and decided that including factual information in my system seems reasonable. I thought that I'd end up spending too much time trying to decide what notes should go into which system. Where is boundary between a "fact" I came up with that's true in my context, and a fact that I read in a book? I was worried that this distinction would end up creating an arbitrary boundary between my own thoughts and the thoughts of others, when the only thing I really care about is whether the output of the system (i.e. my thinking) would be enhanced.

    1. There are other functions I won’t use because they do not fit my system. For instance it is possible to publish your Obsidian vault publicly online (at publish.obsidian.md, here’s a random example), and some do. To me that is unthinkable: my notes are an extension of my thinking and a personal tool. They are part of my inner space. Publishing is a very different thing, meant for a different audience (you, not me), more product than internal process. At most I can imagine having separate public versions of internal notes, but really anything I publish in a public digital garden is an output of my internal digital garden. Obviously I’d want to publish those through my own site, not through an Obsidian controlled domain.

      This is very useful, thanks. I've been struggling with this myself over the past few weeks, looking at different options for how I might create a public version of my personal notes.

      I've been influenced by the idea of learning in public, which is still intriguing to me. But I like this idea that what I publish is an output of what I've been thinking and learning about. More of a product than something where the process is the output.

    1. This allows me to for instance in a client conversation have my task list for that project, notes from our previous conversation as well as in-depth notes about the work, all in one overview, next to the file in which I’m taking notes from the ongoing meeting itself. While in parallel to all that I still have the ability to pull all kinds of other information or conceptual description during the meeting. This allows me to quickly bring up things in high detail, and easily switch between high-level and low-level things, organisational aspects and the topic at hand etc.

      This is how I use Obsidian as well, but I have a separate vault for this kind of "operational" note-taking, as opposed to "knowledge-building" note-taking.

      I know that there's less of a hard boundary between these different contexts than the use of separate vaults suggests, but I've found that I rarely need to switch between them.

    1. Scientific articles and other documents I keep in Zotero, and from my notes I reference the Zotero entry.

      I use Zotero for all resources. It also forms the basis for my literature notes (excerpts and responses to the author) that will stay in Zotero but which will inform my permanent notes.

      For example, all of these comments and highlights (created in Hypothes.is) will be saved in Zotero, along with this blog post. As I've been working through this post I've also been adding, editing, and deleting some of my permanent notes in response. I'll work through these comments again in Zotero, and do a deeper dive into my permanent notes.

    2. I notice a rising need with myself for higher quality material as input.

      Exactly. I've come to realise the same thing. My reasoning was that I'm becoming overwhelmed with the low-quality (some might even call it noise) sources that I have to spend time on before realising that it's not high-value.

    3. Next to actual output, I pull together Notions, and sometimes Notes in what I call ’emergent outlines’ (Söhnke Ahrens in his book about Zettelkasten calls them speculative outlines, I like emergence better than speculation as a term).

      Yes, emergent suits me better as well.

    4. progressive summarising

      Or, what might also be called elaboration.

    5. I spin out notes and potential Notions from my project notes, as I encounter things in my work where some idea or thought jumps out. Those potential Notions I put in a folder called proto notions, inside my GotFP

      I just include these initial thoughts / ideas in the same Obsidian vault as my permanent notes. I think of them as "permanent notes in training" or, as some people have started calling them, seedlings (in the language of the digital gardening crowd).

    6. If you look at the same graph with distance 2, the layer of additionally visible nodes show how my new Notion might be connected to things like online identity, using the environment to store memory and layered access to information. This triggers additional thoughts during the writing process.

      Lovely. This is such a great insight that I can already see is going to help me a lot.

    7. Usually while writing a Notion, I show the graph of how it connects to other Notions/Notes alongside it. I set the graph to show not only the 1st level links, as that only shows the links already apparent from the text I have in front of me. I set it to show 3 steps out at the start, and reduce to two steps when there are more links.

      This is a great idea that hasn't occurred to me before. When looking for non-obvious relationships between concepts (something that I think forms part of creativity), it makes sense to have the graph view open alongside the note you're working on.

    8. The ideas-greenhouse holds ideas I have, ideas that seem like something that can be put to action more or less quickly. They may be connected to notes in the other two folders, or to notes in the project folders. An example would be, that I jotted down the idea of making a digital garden for my company two months ago, triggered by a posting on how a community should have its governance documented in combination with having reread the communication handbook of Basecamp while thinking about remote working. It has since morphed into building a collective memory, and turned into a budding internal website documenting the first few things.

      This pretty much describes something similar for me:

      • Capture an initial snippet of an idea, based on something I've read or heard somewhere.
      • I might turn it over in my head a few times, re-read it, find a few links, do a bit more reading.
      • Eventually I expand on it with my own thoughts, maybe breaking it up into separate (permanent) notes, with links to the original source.
    9. Notions, Notes, Ideas and work notes

      My equivalent, as best as I can tell, is:

      • Permanent notes (atomic, linked concepts) = Notions
      • Temporary notes (half-formed thoughts, links, snippets, etc.) = Notes
      • Temporary notes initially, which later become permanent notes = Ideas (see later comment about why)
      • Admin notes (projects, tasks, meetings, etc.) = Work notes
    10. resources written down with the context added of how I found them and why I was interested

      I might also use Zotero to capture the original resource, with a few notes alongside it to explain why I kept it.

    11. As they are more conceptual than factual I started calling them Notions to distinguish them from the other more general resource Notes

      I've started keeping these things (fact-type notes and conceptual-type notes) together, since I sometimes find it difficult to find the boundaries of when one becomes the other. For me, it makes sense to keep this all in the same place (in my case, a single vault in Obsidian).

    12. They can be linked to Ideas, Notes or Notions, or may give rise to them, but they serve a purpose firmly rooted in ongoing work. They are always placed within the context, and folder, of a specific project

      Similar to how I've come to think of my "admin" or "operational" notes. They're instrumental in that they serve a purpose that is usually about moving some project forward.

    13. The system works for me because it combines those two things and has them interact: My internal dialogue is all about connected ideas and factoids, whereas doing activities and completing projects is more hierarchical in structure.

      Part of me is interested to merge these two aspects; I tend to think of them as "knowledge" and "operations". Knowledge-type work is more networked and connected in nature, while operations-type activities are more structured. However, I don't use a note/folder hierarchy here either.

    1. The task management set-up

      Having gone through the description below, I can't help but feel that there's an awful amount of manual effort going on here. My own thinking is that task and project management as part of a daily workflow needs to be something relatively friction-less.

      When there's too much structure in a system, with too many steps, I feel like I would be spending more time managing the system than doing the work.

      One of my goals in my own system is to reduce the number of steps required to complete any single activity.

    2. I do not use my mobile to look at or add tasks, or mark them completed. I basically always work laptop-first. This means that the availability of my tasks lists on mobile, and the capability to edit them there, is not important to me

      I used to work from the premise that I have to be able to add tasks to a system that is cross-platform (because otherwise, how could I add that one task while walking between meetings, and have it show up in my work for the day on my laptop?).

      But now I've switched to a "working context", which means I'm sitting in front of my laptop. It's where I capture 99% of the work I need to do. If, on the rare occasion I need to capture a task or note, I use Joplin.

    1. I am using a system for myself to plan and do my work, maintain lots of things in parallel, and keep notes. That system consists of several interlocking methods, and those methods are supported by various tools. What I describe in my review of 100 days of using Obsidian, is not about Obsidian’s functionality per se, but more about how the functionality and affordances of Obsidian fit with my system and the methods in that system

      Important point to make. I think of this as "Principles before tools", which means that I start with what I want to achieve, and then find tools that help me do that more effectively.

  13. Oct 2020
    1. In short to add wiki-style functionality to my blog, the only functionality that is really needed is that 1) I myself have a edit button on static items, 2) the ability to categorise and tag those items, and 3) keep those items outside of the blog posting stream on the front page, and outside of the RSS feed. WordPress pages fit that description, when I’m logged in, and after adding a plugin to allow categories and tags on pages. So a page based section it is, or rather, will be over time.

      I like the idea of this and the overall structure. It reminds me a bit of Wikity which may provide this functionality plus a bit more. I really need to spin up a version and play around with it to see if it will give me what I'm looking for in terms of a blog linked with wiki-like functionality.

    1. The other two are where the open web is severely lacking: The seamless integration into one user interface of both reading and writing, making it very easy to respond to others that way, or add to the river of content.

      As I read this I can't help thinking about my friend Aaron Davis (@mrkrndvs) a member of the IndieWeb, whose domain name is appropriately https://readwriterespond.com/

  14. Nov 2018
    1. We need to learn to see the cumulative impact of a multitude of efforts, while simultaneously keeping all those efforts visible on their own. There exist so many initiatives I think that are great examples of how distributed digitalisation leads to transformation, but they are largely invisible outside their own context, and also not widely networked and connected enough to reach their own full potential. They are valuable on their own, but would be even more valuable to themselves and others when federated, but the federation part is mostly missing. We need to find a better way to see the big picture, while also seeing all pixels it consists of. A macroscope, a distributed digital transformation macroscope.

      This seems to be a related problem to the discovery questions that Kicks Condor and Brad Enslen have been thing about.

    1. They can spew hate amongst themselves for eternity, but without amplification it won’t thrive.

      This is a key point. Social media and the way it amplifies almost anything for the benefit of clicks towards advertising is one of its most toxic features. Too often the extreme voice draws the most attention instead of being moderated down by more civil and moderate society.