# Zettelkasten vs (Personal) Wiki

edited April 8

Hi all!

How do people use the terms "zettelkasten" and "personal wiki"? What are the defining characteristics of each and how are they related according to your vocabulary?

How I use the terms:

• A zettelkasten is a collection of notes in which the notes are not categorised into different folders, but organised via unambiguous links between each other (and optionally tags). There is no restriction on the type of notes that a zettelkasten can contain.
• A wiki is a special kind of zettelkasten that only contains notes about objects. The links between notes are usually created automatically: a link is inserted whenever a term is mentioned that refers to an object on which there is a note in the wiki. A personal wiki would be a wiki on which only one person works, which is usually not intended for the public.

Is that how other people use the terms as well? @ctietze's comment here suggests that that's not the case – curious as to what other people mean by it...

«1

## Comments

• A Zettelkasten is a "slipnotes" in a litterate way. You can obstain on with papier and woodbox, or a digital one with interlinked documents.

A wiki is a kind of website with hyperlinking structure rathing that a hiearchical organisation of a collection of pages . Mediawiki or Dokuwiki do that kind of website (CMS), and Wikipedia is one example made with Mediawiki.

The first lays on "atomicity" of note as a principle, the second may be or not exhaustive in their articles.

• I don't use private personal wikis, so my interpretation is: Zettelkasten is the private work space, personal wiki is a form of publication. Maybe not polished for publishing, but edited and redacted where needed, so I can trust that I can be stupid in my Zettelkasten without anyone noticing.

Author at Zettelkasten.de • https://christiantietze.de/

• @Loni said:
A wiki is a kind of website with hyperlinking structure rathing that a hiearchical organisation of a collection of pages.

I don't get this. Is the wiki or the Zettelkasten a hierarchical system? The Zettelkasten is a heterarchy, so perhaps you meant that the wiki is hierarchical. Is my guess correct?

• @Annabella said:

@Loni said:
A wiki is a kind of website with hyperlinking structure rathing that a hiearchical organisation of a collection of pages.

I don't get this. Is the wiki or the Zettelkasten a hierarchical system? The Zettelkasten is a heterarchy, so perhaps you meant that the wiki is hierarchical. Is my guess correct?

Oh, sorry for the misunderstood. A non-wiki site is by hierarchical organisation of page :

• Home
• Page 1
• Page 2
• Subpage 2

Or by date of post, like a blog.

Wiki pages or Zettelkasten can be hierarchicaly organised, or dates organised, but they primarly rely on hyperlinks made by the writer between pages for the reader to travel inside it. Blogs and other websites don't.

• @Loni said:
A Zettelkasten is a "slipnotes" in a litterate way. You can obstain on with papier and woodbox, or a digital one with interlinked documents.

A wiki is a kind of website with hyperlinking structure rathing that a hiearchical organisation of a collection of pages . Mediawiki or Dokuwiki do that kind of website (CMS), and Wikipedia is one example made with Mediawiki.

The first lays on "atomicity" of note as a principle, the second may be or not exhaustive in their articles.

As far as I understand, that means that you wouldn't consider a (personal) wiki a particular kind of zettelkasten. You also wouldn't consider my zettelkasten a zettelkasten, because it doesn't adhere to the Atomicity Principle (which I've always been a bit suspicious of ). Is that right?

@ctietze said:
I don't use private personal wikis, so my interpretation is: Zettelkasten is the private work space, personal wiki is a form of publication. Maybe not polished for publishing, but edited and redacted where needed, so I can trust that I can be stupid in my Zettelkasten without anyone noticing.

Hm, that's interesting... So no difference regarding content, kind of links, etc. – just the publication status?

• @Vinho
You also wouldn't consider my zettelkasten a zettelkasten, because it doesn't adhere to the Atomicity Principle (which I've always been a bit suspicious of ). Is that right?

Whatever you do about your Zettelkasten is not my business. A Zettelkasten is a slipbox of interlinked notes redacted in a atomic way. That is the definition as it seems to appear to be from my researches of the subject.

Do you already post some arguments about atomicity ? I will ask you to develop this idea, if possible. Why ? How do you use your Zettelkasten ?

As far as I understand, that means that you wouldn't consider a (personal) wiki a particular kind of zettelkasten.

A wiki website is a website. It is a publication media. Only a tool. You can take notes in a public way, if you want it, even if I think it changes the way you take them as @ctietze writes it. But once again : none of my business, I will not judge the way you work.

It is just that there is definition of a discipline, and way of practicing a discipline. Sometimes, way and definitions diverge a lot and it is not the same discipline anymore. It can be a better or a worse way to practice, I don't know if it is your case, I don't have datas to evaluate that fact, and, on the top of that, I am not an authority of the Zettelkasten domain.

However you ask a question and I try to answer it with the data I have in my hands.

Hm, that's interesting... So no difference regarding content, kind of links, etc. – just the publication status?

Notes are notes, it is a state. Publication is publication, it is also a state. You can use a plateforme of publication to write notes, if you like it, because it is a tool, not a state. "Publication" is the state. It can be used for making a Zettelkasten, for example some of people I've found use Dokuwiki on a local distribution and if I find this tedious, I understand their motivation. Tiddlywiki is a private wiki notebook in nature that can be used for publication as well.

When someone talks about a "wiki", it refers generaly to a website published under a wiki form.

What tool do you use ?

• There is no meaningful difference in my opinion. My old personal wikis (ZIM) were created in the same spirit like my Zettelkasten.

Both are means to an end for dealing with knowledge. Normally, I explain the difference like that: A wiki is a kind of software, the Zettelkasten Method is a way of using software (or paper slips).

To really push for a difference would lead to types of no true scottsman fallacies.

I am a Zettler

• The way I differentiate them is that a wiki is focused on providing authoritative knowledge on a subject (e.g. encyclopedia), while a zettelkasten is more focused on developing knowledge, therefore it contains more exploratory information such as open questions/ideas/thoughts.

• @Vinho I make very little distinction between a personal wiki and a ZK. I see wiki software as just one way to create a ZK but I think it's also an easier format for others to access and perhaps also to contribute ideas as well. I've played with using a personal wiki as a ZK, but so far have found it less satisfying than The Archive. However, the jury is still open, as at some stage I want to share my ZK with my kids, grandkids, etc., and maybe they will want to play with it and add their own insights at some point.

The distinction that @Nick makes might also be useful, although I think in the end the two converge.

• @Loni said:
Whatever you do about your Zettelkasten is not my business. A Zettelkasten is a slipbox of interlinked notes redacted in a atomic way. That is the definition as it seems to appear to be from my researches of the subject.

I think there isn't one "true" definition out there, people use the term in slightly different ways. Often the Atomicity Principle will be part of the fundamental principles in theory, but in practice people then also often don't follow it. You will find a lot of zettels in pretty much every zettelkasten I've seen that aren't about just one idea.

Do you already post some arguments about atomicity ? I will ask you to develop this idea, if possible. Why ? How do you use your Zettelkasten ?

I meant to write an article about this a while ago, but I feel that it's still evolving a lot. But in short: I don't just have zettels on individual ideas/thoughts in my zettelkasten – in fact very few of those. Most frequently, I have zettels that are supposed to answer a particular question. Or object zettels, that collect information/thoughts/questions around a particular object/topic/concept. Or journal zettels for a day, etc. All these don't adhere to the Atomicity Principle.

As far as I understand, that means that you wouldn't consider a (personal) wiki a particular kind of zettelkasten.

A wiki website is a website. It is a publication media. Only a tool. You can take notes in a public way, if you want it, even if I think it changes the way you take them as @ctietze writes it. But once again : none of my business, I will not judge the way you work.

In general this thread is not about right/wrong and being judged – I also don't feel offended in the least. I don't care if you call my zettelkasten a zettelkasten or not – I'm just interested in how other people use the terms and if there is a widespread, widely agreed upon terminology that I'm not aware of. This doesn't seem to be the case.

When someone talks about a "wiki", it refers generaly to a website published under a wiki form.

What's your source for that claim? To my knowledge that is often the case, but not always. There are personal wiki apps out there that enable people to create their own personal wiki stored on their computer, not uploaded or published on any website. I tried an app called VoodooPad myself for a while, a more popular application is TiddlyWiki, which needs a browser to work with, but works with files stored on your own computer that are usually not published. I've also heard people call their notes in a note taking app like Bear a personal Wiki. See also the Personal Wiki Wikipedia entry.

What tool do you use ?

For my zettelkasten I use The Archive, heavily supported by various Keyboard Maestro Macros. I'm quite happy with that, although there are a few limitations that I struggle with – mostly because of the plain text approach. I e.g. still haven't found a satisfactory way to include tables in my notes. And sometimes the links via the unique ID in brackets seem a bit cluttery to me, compared to a link in Wikipedia where you just click on a word...

• @Vinho said:
I still haven't found a satisfactory way to include tables in my notes...

Just in case you are not aware of it, there is @ctietze 's nice app for easily producing tables in text files. It is called TableFlip: https://tableflipapp.com/

These are not really fancy tables and the format is of course limited by the fact that you are just in a text file, but the app makes their creation and manipulation relatively simple.

• @Vinho said:

What's your source for that claim? To my knowledge that is often the case, but not always.

This is what I say. Maybe "generaly" emphasized has not the same meaning for you ? I am french, using a rusted english, with a small demanding thing called "child" besides me half of the day, so I may use some words in a wrong way. You ask for what is a "personal wiki" from everyone's point of view, I give mine to you. I may be influenced by my webmastering experience here, though.

There are personal wiki apps out there that enable people to create their own personal wiki stored on their computer, not uploaded or published on any website.

And I wrote about Tiddlywiki some lines after, yes, I know that.

From my point of view, whatever personal software or CMS used locally or on a open serveur, "wiki" refers by all mean to a tool, while "Zettelkasten" refers to a method. You can maintain a wiki without the Zettelkasten mind, or with this kind of discipline in mind. You can make a Zettelkasten without a wiki software, for example using command palette and written convention to refer to a link.

In general this thread is not about right/wrong and being judged – I also don't feel offended in the least. I don't care if you call my zettelkasten a zettelkasten or not – I'm just interested in how other people use the terms and if there is a widespread, widely agreed upon terminology that I'm not aware of. This doesn't seem to be the case.

I am a "by words" person. If you ask my opinion, I conclude that my opinion may be taken in account.
I should add a "use with cautious" on my profile >.<

If you referred to a "digital garden" like on the link you posted on the first post, it's a kind of mix of old wiki which were html pages and hyperlinks, and modern website, with a "Zettelkasten" approach for publishing. I still have my notes on my computer in my Zettelkasten, but I published articles with the "Zettelkasten spirit" in a wiki way on my blog. Not anymore dead articles, they become "always green" (evergreen) articles.

• @Sascha said:
There is no meaningful difference in my opinion. My old personal wikis (ZIM) were created in the same spirit like my Zettelkasten.

Both are means to an end for dealing with knowledge. Normally, I explain the difference like that: A wiki is a kind of software, the Zettelkasten Method is a way of using software (or paper slips).

To really push for a difference would lead to types of no true scottsman fallacies.

Another version of (softly) distinguishing the terms then – one is software, the other one is a method that can be implemented in different ways.

Since you mention the True Scotsman Fallacy (the second time in our interactions so far): I'm not trying to make a generalisation here about how people use the terms or to find "the true meaning" of the terms (which doesn't exist). I'm just trying to get a sense of different ways in which the term is used and think about how I want to use them.

@Nick said:
The way I differentiate them is that a wiki is focused on providing authoritative knowledge on a subject (e.g. encyclopedia), while a zettelkasten is more focused on developing knowledge, therefore it contains more exploratory information such as open questions/ideas/thoughts.

That would be the fifth use so far, thanks. Interesting that people use the terms so differently.

@GeoEng51 said:

@Vinho said:
I still haven't found a satisfactory way to include tables in my notes...

Just in case you are not aware of it, there is @ctietze 's nice app for easily producing tables in text files. It is called TableFlip: https://tableflipapp.com/

These are not really fancy tables and the format is of course limited by the fact that you are just in a text file, but the app makes their creation and manipulation relatively simple.

I am aware of it, yes, but thanks for trying to help me out I've tried using it, but I find it only really works for very small tables with very short cell contents that don't need several lines in a cell (e.g. numbers or single words). Almost all the tables I want to use don't fulfil these requirements... I also usually need to be able to freeze the first row and column of a table in order to work well with it.

• @Loni said:
@Vinho said:

What's your source for that claim? To my knowledge that is often the case, but not always.

This is what I say. Maybe "generaly" emphasized has not the same meaning for you ? I am french, using a rusted english, with a small demanding thing called "child" besides me half of the day, so I may use some words in a wrong way. You ask for what is a "personal wiki" from everyone's point of view, I give mine to you. I may be influenced by my webmastering experience here, though.

I see, I think it was a language problem then. I'm also not a native English speaker by the way
I think I just got the impression from some of what you were writing that you were not just "modestly" describing your own use of the terms, but implying that there is some widely agreed upon, "true" or "adequate" use of the terms. That's where my resistance came from. But if you don't think that, I don't have a problem with what you're writing.

From my point of view, whatever personal software or CMS used locally or on a open serveur, "wiki" refers by all mean to a tool, while "Zettelkasten" refers to a method. You can maintain a wiki without the Zettelkasten mind, or with this kind of discipline in mind. You can make a Zettelkasten without a wiki software, for example using command palette and written convention to refer to a link.

Oh, I see. That sounds like @Sascha's use of the terms above then.

In general this thread is not about right/wrong and being judged – I also don't feel offended in the least. I don't care if you call my zettelkasten a zettelkasten or not – I'm just interested in how other people use the terms and if there is a widespread, widely agreed upon terminology that I'm not aware of. This doesn't seem to be the case.

I am a "by words" person. If you ask my opinion, I conclude that my opinion may be taken in account.

And they are. What I meant by "I don't care if you call my zettelkasten a zettelkasten or not" is "I don't feel offended if you don't call my zettelkasten a zettelkasten". I definitely didn't mean "I'm not interested in whether you call my zettelkasten a zettelkasten or not"

• @Vinhyo
I see, I think it was a language problem then. I'm also not a native English speaker by the way

OK, so let's start to ask explanation from each other before implying meanings if a word seems ambiguous, or a sentence too bold.

I think I just got the impression from some of what you were writing that you were not just "modestly" describing your own use of the terms, but implying that there is some widely agreed upon, "true" or "adequate" use of the terms. That's where my resistance came from. But if you don't think that, I don't have a problem with what you're writing.

I get it, and I think I would react the same than you. I was trying to adopt an "outside" point of view of this, but as I tend to be a bold person and I lack subtility in English, you just received my assertiveness without anything else. Maybe I don't give enough reflexion before posting to enlight logical articulation and raffined my words… Espacialy now I see you seem to accord a certain importance of "lexical field" of a discipline… ? Is at right ?

And they are. What I meant by "I don't care if you call my zettelkasten a zettelkasten or not" is "I don't feel offended if you don't call my zettelkasten a zettelkasten". I definitely didn't mean "I'm not interested in whether you call my zettelkasten a zettelkasten or not"

Ok, I get it !
So, my main focus is "is it work for you ?" "yes ? then why and how ?"

But in short: I don't just have zettels on individual ideas/thoughts in my zettelkasten – in fact very few of those. Most frequently, I have zettels that are supposed to answer a particular question. Or object zettels, that collect information/thoughts/questions around a particular object/topic/concept. Or journal zettels for a day, etc. All these don't adhere to the Atomicity Principle.

It remembers me "list" principles, like outliners ?

Like :

## Question ?

*Explanations and illustrations of the problem*

* Paradigm 1
* Implications 1
* Paradigm 2
* Implications 2

* Possible answer and new question 1
* Some details here
* In the deepest here
* Contradiction…
* Possible answer and new question 2
* Possible answer and new question 3


?

Do you need to connect some part of it to other piece or your Zettelkasten ? How do you proceed ?

• @Loni said:

@Vinhyo
I see, I think it was a language problem then. I'm also not a native English speaker by the way

OK, so let's start to ask explanation from each other before implying meanings if a word seems ambiguous, or a sentence too bold.

Agreed! That's a good strategy generally

I think I just got the impression from some of what you were writing that you were not just "modestly" describing your own use of the terms, but implying that there is some widely agreed upon, "true" or "adequate" use of the terms. That's where my resistance came from. But if you don't think that, I don't have a problem with what you're writing.

I get it, and I think I would react the same than you. I was trying to adopt an "outside" point of view of this, but as I tend to be a bold person and I lack subtility in English, you just received my assertiveness without anything else. Maybe I don't give enough reflexion before posting to enlight logical articulation and raffined my words… Espacialy now I see you seem to accord a certain importance of "lexical field" of a discipline… ? Is at right ?

Not entirely sure what you mean, but clear use of words is very important to me I studied mathematics and (analytical) philosophy.

But in short: I don't just have zettels on individual ideas/thoughts in my zettelkasten – in fact very few of those. Most frequently, I have zettels that are supposed to answer a particular question. Or object zettels, that collect information/thoughts/questions around a particular object/topic/concept. Or journal zettels for a day, etc. All these don't adhere to the Atomicity Principle.

It remembers me "list" principles, like outliners ?

Like :

## Question ?

*Explanations and illustrations of the problem*

* Paradigm 1
* Implications 1
* Paradigm 2
* Implications 2

* Possible answer and new question 1
* Some details here
* In the deepest here
* Contradiction…
* Possible answer and new question 2
* Possible answer and new question 3


?

Do you need to connect some part of it to other piece or your Zettelkasten ? How do you proceed ?

I usually start with a question or a zettel on a concept/object and collect all the relevant information on that zettel. If parts of the zettel (subquestions, elaboration of individual thoughts, etc.) get too big, I create a new zettel for such a part and link to it from the parent zettel. I also split up a zettel if I want to link to just a part of it from a different zettel.
So I work a bit more top-down (from general overview to detail) than bottom-up (from individual thoughts/ideas to overviews).

• @Vinho

Not entirely sure what you mean, but clear use of words is very important to me I studied mathematics and (analytical) philosophy.

OK, "champ lexical"/"lexical field" seems to be a french idiom. It all words related to a precise field or a concept. "Existentialism" "Utilitarism" and "Empirism" come from the "lexical field" of 'philosophical theories'. "Stern" "bow" (of the ship), "sail", "mast" are part of 'ship' and 'navigation' "lexical field". That's something which fascinates me. Like Diderot, I make a "dictionnary", for working my fictionnal writing.

What are the differences between philosophy and analytical philosophy ? Did you study a field, a theory, a philosopher in perticular ?

Mathematics are fascinating, but really hard to study by myself. One of my friend is a mathematical researcher, I can understand the very very (very) superficial meaning of a theory, but miss the underlying process. I see maths like music and a language by itself.

So I work a bit more top-down (from general overview to detail) than bottom-up (from individual thoughts/ideas to overviews).

With your background, it is totaly logical.

I usually start with a question or a zettel on a concept/object and collect all the relevant information on that zettel. If parts of the zettel (subquestions, elaboration of individual thoughts, etc.) get too big, I create a new zettel for such a part and link to it from the parent zettel. I also split up a zettel if I want to link to just a part of it from a different zettel.

OK, is it to obtain the whole picture about a subject ? How do you remember what notes are hidden in the zettel ?

• @Vinho I really like the concept of "structural-functional account", where you ask what is the structural-functional account of X. How does the structure enable (or not) / promote certain functions within X.

In this scenario you would ask how does the structure differ between a personal wiki and a zettelkasten and what different functions do those result in? The primary structural difference between a personal wiki and a zettelkasten is the atomicity of ideas. Wikis (as far as I'm aware) tend to be pages on topics with a table of contents of the page. While a zettelkasten is all the ideas broken up in atomic (more granular).

This thinking is where I got the difference between the two being information referencing (wiki) vs. development (zettelkasten).

• @Loni said:
What are the differences between philosophy and analytical philosophy ? Did you study a field, a theory, a philosopher in perticular ?

I studied very few individual philosophers in great detail, but followed a more systematic approach, i.e. I followed questions I was interested in and then tried to understand different answers to those questions from different philosophers that had thought about them before. I'm not very good at characterising what analytical philosophy is, since I never really look into non-analytical philosophy It's commonly characterised as a movement within philosophy that focuses very much on clear definitions and logic to answer philosophical questions. The first thing to analytical philosophers usually do when they try to answer a question is to think about what they mean by the different terms in the question.

I usually start with a question or a zettel on a concept/object and collect all the relevant information on that zettel. If parts of the zettel (subquestions, elaboration of individual thoughts, etc.) get too big, I create a new zettel for such a part and link to it from the parent zettel. I also split up a zettel if I want to link to just a part of it from a different zettel.

OK, is it to obtain the whole picture about a subject ? How do you remember what notes are hidden in the zettel ?

I tend to not think in subjects, but questions/thoughts and objects that these questions/thoughts are about. Both can serve as entry points into my zettelkasten: If I want to find my previous thoughts about a question that I have thought about before and now have renewed interest in, I open the corresponding question zettel. If I want to some specific information about a particular object (which might or might not be part of a question on that object), I usually open the corresponding object zettel which then contains or leads me to the relevant information.

Maybe one big difference between my zettelkasten and some others that follow a more conventional approach including the "Atomicity Principle" is that I mainly use my zettelkasten to store information that I don't want to forget. My main focus is to make sure I find it again.
Others might have a stronger emphasis on using the zettelkasten to generate new ideas.

• @Nick said:
@Vinho I really like the concept of "structural-functional account", where you ask what is the structural-functional account of X. How does the structure enable (or not) / promote certain functions within X.

In this scenario you would ask how does the structure differ between a personal wiki and a zettelkasten and what different functions do those result in? The primary structural difference between a personal wiki and a zettelkasten is the atomicity of ideas. Wikis (as far as I'm aware) tend to be pages on topics with a table of contents of the page. While a zettelkasten is all the ideas broken up in atomic (more granular).

This thinking is where I got the difference between the two being information referencing (wiki) vs. development (zettelkasten).

That's really interesting, thanks. As I mentioned in my reply to @Loni above, I have noticed before that some people tend to expect their zettelkasten to generate new ideas for them, whereas others, like me, mainly use it to store information/ideas. It's interesting to think about how this relates to the Principle of Atomicity – regardless how you call your collections of notes

• What do you think about my proposal:

1. Create a open Google Doc
2. Generate a glossary as a nested ist. Each participant shares his definition under the term in question (generate a new bullet point if necessary)
3. Then we try to group the terms by any means.
• One might be a two column table in which we asign each term to either side or both
• Another might be a concept map.
• etc.

I am a Zettler

• @Sascha said:
What do you think about my proposal:

1. Create a open Google Doc
2. Generate a glossary as a nested ist. Each participant shares his definition under the term in question (generate a new bullet point if necessary)
3. Then we try to group the terms by any means.
• One might be a two column table in which we asign each term to either side or both
• Another might be a concept map.
• etc.

Is this post in the right thread?

• Yes. (I am all for collaboration because den Holzweg geht man immer bis zum Ende. Sonst weiß man nicht, ob am Ende nicht doch ein Topf Gold versteckt ist)

I am a Zettler

• @Sascha said:
What do you think about my proposal:

1. Create a open Google Doc
2. Generate a glossary as a nested ist. Each participant shares his definition under the term in question (generate a new bullet point if necessary)
3. Then we try to group the terms by any means.
• One might be a two column table in which we asign each term to either side or both
• Another might be a concept map.
• etc.

To whom are you replying?

• @Vinho said:
It's commonly characterised as a movement within philosophy that focuses very much on clear definitions and logic to answer philosophical questions. The first thing to analytical philosophers usually do when they try to answer a question is to think about what they mean by the different terms in the question.

I think I understand, this is an "analytical" approach of philosophie, in a mathematical meaning by some way. "If x means this, so this y affirmation can't be true." It leads to questionning even the way we look at nature : the modele we make to conceptualize it is not the nature itself, by definition. I hope I understood it fine.

It reminds me "General Semantic", theorised by Alfred Korzybski : sciences in language, how sciences impacted the way we can conceptualize the world and human's brain. It is more "human science" centred, and studies the way our nervous system interacts with its environment.

I tend to not think in subjects, but questions/thoughts and objects that these questions/thoughts are about. Both can serve as entry points into my zettelkasten: If I want to find my previous thoughts about a question that I have thought about before and now have renewed interest in, I open the corresponding question zettel. If I want to some specific information about a particular object (which might or might not be part of a question on that object), I usually open the corresponding object zettel which then contains or leads me to the relevant information.

So you have : Object -> Questions and Object->Information zettels ? What are the difference between subjects and objects ?
I would really be curious about the way you work, could you notify me when/if you write your article about it ?

@Sascha said:
What do you think about my proposal:
Create a open Google Doc
Generate a glossary as a nested ist. Each participant shares his definition under the term in question (generate a new bullet point if necessary)
Then we try to group the terms by any means.
One might be a two column table in which we asign each term to either side or both
Another might be a concept map.
etc.

Anyone can participate to this awesome collective brainstorming ? It lloks like we are all collecting plants to make an herbarium

• @Loni said:
Anyone can participate to this awesome collective brainstorming ? It lloks like we are all collecting plants to make an herbarium

Yeah just go ahead. I tried to chime in:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/15gI7LozljTOvo_7oUwfnOIwfzD8O0VHVgWGr0oK3RI0/edit#

Author at Zettelkasten.de • https://christiantietze.de/

• Thank you
So here we are : I've made some suggestions and comparisons, with explanations, like you did.

• Added a few opposing pairs myself, starting with NOR (no original research).

Erdős #2. ZK software components. “If you’re thinking without writing, you only think you’re thinking.” -- Leslie Lamport. Replies sometimes delayed since life is short.

• Looking at the document so far, everyone seems to have entered opposing pairs. This suggests that everyone (apart from me) sees a zettelkasten and a wiki as different things. According to my definition in the original post a wiki would just be a special kind within the broader category of zettelkästen. So every wiki would be a zettelkasten, but not vice versa.
I wonder whether this is mainly because of how the document was laid out (and possibly the heading of this thread) or whether you all would have been opposed to calling wikis zettelkästen before this...

Sign In or Register to comment.

#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!