4 ms·

Slightly off-topic, but still related: does someone have an explanation about the differences between a wiki and Roam or the Zettelkasten method ? Sure, the way

by rakoo 6y ago

Slightly off-topic, but still related: does someone have an explanation about the differences between a wiki and Roam or the Zettelkasten method ? Sure, the way to input content can be different, and Roam gives you more visibility into the way nodes are interlinked. But it seems to me those can be attained with plugins, it's not a fundamental difference in the principles behind.

ailun 6y ago
I was curious so I looked it up. From zettelkasten.de/introduction/ when the author is talking about the principle of atomicity: > Wikipedia, also, is not a web of thoughts, because you can only link to articles and sections within them, but not to individual thoughts inside the text. None of the addresses matches with any thought. Wikipedia is not meant to be such a thing. Rather, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with each article containing information on a topic. Wikipedia is not a thinking tool but a tool for information retrieval.
input_sh 6y ago
I do both within the same app (Obsidian) with some plugins, so let me explain the difference from my perspective. Wiki, in my mind, is more suitable for somewhat long and detailed notes about concepts. Random titles from my notes: conspiracy theories, neoliberalism, borders, norms, monopolies, habits, addiction, time management... Zettelkasten is kind of the opposite of that. It's more about making connections between concepts than thoroughly researching certain concepts. Random titles from my notes: news kills creativity, inequality generates status anxiety which generates ecological damage, relationship between paywalls and echo-chambers... These connections made in zettelkastens have no place in a wiki page because the point of wiki pages is to have a somewhat detailed explanation of concepts. Zettelkastens are much shorter (usually between 5-10 sentences and 1-3 sources). Another way to look at it: zettelkasten is for stuff that you write once and rarely have a reason to expand upon (other than to create a new link to something similar), while wiki is for stuff that you know you're gonna have to return to with the goal of adding more stuff.
- rakoo 6y ago
  Thank you for your view, I guess Roam also adheres to the Zettelkasten way and that's why there is much more focus on the interlinking of nodes ? It seems to me the difference lies more in the wiki software. I was asking the initial question because there are wiki engines with a lot of features, and what you are doing for Zettelkasten can be done in them as well: take for example tiddlywiki (https://tiddlywiki.com/ https://tiddlywiki.com/) which organizes nodes in "tiddlers" instead of full-blown articles or pages. You can link to another "tiddler", or you can even include it so its content can be reused elsewhere without having to "click". So it seems to me those new systems are more revealing of todays' wiki engines' limitations than completely new paradigms. Another difference I just realized: wikis are expected to be read and modified by multiple people, while Roam and Zettelkasten systems are expected to be used by one person only. While not written in stone, I feel like this has an impact on the way content is structured.

by rakoo 6y ago

ailun 6y ago

I was curious so I looked it up. From zettelkasten.de/introduction/ when the author is talking about the principle of atomicity: > Wikipedia, also, is not a web of thoughts, because you can only link to articles and sections within them, but not to individual thoughts inside the text. None of the addresses matches with any thought. Wikipedia is not meant to be such a thing. Rather, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with each article containing information on a topic. Wikipedia is not a thinking tool but a tool for information retrieval.

input_sh 6y ago

I do both within the same app (Obsidian) with some plugins, so let me explain the difference from my perspective. Wiki, in my mind, is more suitable for somewhat long and detailed notes about concepts. Random titles from my notes: conspiracy theories, neoliberalism, borders, norms, monopolies, habits, addiction, time management... Zettelkasten is kind of the opposite of that. It's more about making connections between concepts than thoroughly researching certain concepts. Random titles from my notes: news kills creativity, inequality generates status anxiety which generates ecological damage, relationship between paywalls and echo-chambers... These connections made in zettelkastens have no place in a wiki page because the point of wiki pages is to have a somewhat detailed explanation of concepts. Zettelkastens are much shorter (usually between 5-10 sentences and 1-3 sources). Another way to look at it: zettelkasten is for stuff that you write once and rarely have a reason to expand upon (other than to create a new link to something similar), while wiki is for stuff that you know you're gonna have to return to with the goal of adding more stuff.

rakoo 6y ago
Thank you for your view, I guess Roam also adheres to the Zettelkasten way and that's why there is much more focus on the interlinking of nodes ? It seems to me the difference lies more in the wiki software. I was asking the initial question because there are wiki engines with a lot of features, and what you are doing for Zettelkasten can be done in them as well: take for example tiddlywiki (https://tiddlywiki.com/ https://tiddlywiki.com/) which organizes nodes in "tiddlers" instead of full-blown articles or pages. You can link to another "tiddler", or you can even include it so its content can be reused elsewhere without having to "click". So it seems to me those new systems are more revealing of todays' wiki engines' limitations than completely new paradigms. Another difference I just realized: wikis are expected to be read and modified by multiple people, while Roam and Zettelkasten systems are expected to be used by one person only. While not written in stone, I feel like this has an impact on the way content is structured.