If it's a thought on a text-note, I use square brackets for my own thoughts. But I also have zettels that are just own thoughts on their own, in that case I don't mark it.
I use CriticMarkup and its associated syntax so that I can see and find my comments using markdown tools such as Marked 2 or Multimarkdown Composer 4. CM can also be used with tools such as BBEdit, TextExpander, and Keyboard Maestro. I assume there others as well.
@kevin said:
How do you prefer to cite or indicate your own ideas / observations in the ZK?
I write as if I am writing just a text. If I am refering to other peoples content I reference it. But why should I indicate that something is my own idea?
@kevin said:
How do you prefer to cite or indicate your own ideas / observations in the ZK?
I write as if I am writing just a text. If I am refering to other peoples content I reference it. But why should I indicate that something is my own idea?
E.g. when taking notes from a book, it can be very useful to distinguish comments (own ideas) from the ideas of the author. At least I took it that the question was about some similar situation. (And from past experience I know that it is very easy to confuse the two -- which is a real PITA when you go back to cite the book...)
All of the above. Separating my own opinion on a bit of into from a source.
Also, if I throw my own thought into the system, then run across it 2 years later, how to distinguish an original thought from a note from a source that wasn’t cited by accident.
I conventionally name all my notes that are from books with the bibtex citekey of the book -- this way always know that it was a book note. In those docs I just use double brackets for my own comments.
xxxxxxxxx [[what does this mean? Cf. also abc. This seems wrong.]]
Or, if it's a short bit and I have a lot to say about it I just draw a horizontal line and say NOTE: ////.
EDIT: also, I think there is right and wrong way of doing this as long as you are consistent with yourself (otherwise you'll run into the "2 yrs later" problem...).
Back in 2009, when I started adding a "category" prefix to my note names, e.g. R2 indicated "referencing a 2nd party". R1 was "referencing myself" then. R3 would be akin to blindly citing something.
This did provide no benefit at all over the years, and I eventually abandoned this kind of categorization completely. Instead I was fine with the simple convention from writing texts, plus a Zettelkasten-related one:
when there're quotation marks + a reference, that's a direct quote
when there are no marks + a reference, that's a paraphrase in my own words
when there's a [[wiki link]] to another note, that's a paraphrase of my own words
The latter sounds most to what you were asking initially. I never quoted myself and references a note via link, but I guess that'd complete the symmetric list above
@ctietze Please note, that you didn't just abandoned those categorisations. It was years of me negging you to the death with all my skills of being annoying.
@kevin It is quite simple like in a book: The default is that you wrote something yourself. And any reference signifies that it is not purely your own.
In the Zettelkasten, everything that lacks a reference is my own idea. If it later turns out someone else had the same idea, I simply add the reference. At that point it does not matter anymore whether I had the idea too. This is the same in texts (cf. @Sascha ).
In summaries, I use square brackets to signify my own ideas, because everything else is transcribed from the text. It would be a waste of time to add the same reference to every sentence.
Comments
With great joy and pleasure.
I am a Zettler
If it's a thought on a text-note, I use square brackets for my own thoughts. But I also have zettels that are just own thoughts on their own, in that case I don't mark it.
I use CriticMarkup and its associated syntax so that I can see and find my comments using markdown tools such as Marked 2 or Multimarkdown Composer 4. CM can also be used with tools such as BBEdit, TextExpander, and Keyboard Maestro. I assume there others as well.
I write as if I am writing just a text. If I am refering to other peoples content I reference it. But why should I indicate that something is my own idea?
I am a Zettler
E.g. when taking notes from a book, it can be very useful to distinguish comments (own ideas) from the ideas of the author. At least I took it that the question was about some similar situation. (And from past experience I know that it is very easy to confuse the two -- which is a real PITA when you go back to cite the book...)
All of the above. Separating my own opinion on a bit of into from a source.
Also, if I throw my own thought into the system, then run across it 2 years later, how to distinguish an original thought from a note from a source that wasn’t cited by accident.
I conventionally name all my notes that are from books with the bibtex citekey of the book -- this way always know that it was a book note. In those docs I just use double brackets for my own comments.
xxxxxxxxx [[what does this mean? Cf. also abc. This seems wrong.]]
Or, if it's a short bit and I have a lot to say about it I just draw a horizontal line and say NOTE: ////.
EDIT: also, I think there is right and wrong way of doing this as long as you are consistent with yourself (otherwise you'll run into the "2 yrs later" problem...).
Back in 2009, when I started adding a "category" prefix to my note names, e.g.
R2indicated "referencing a 2nd party".R1was "referencing myself" then.R3would be akin to blindly citing something.This did provide no benefit at all over the years, and I eventually abandoned this kind of categorization completely. Instead I was fine with the simple convention from writing texts, plus a Zettelkasten-related one:
[[wiki link]]to another note, that's a paraphrase of my own wordsThe latter sounds most to what you were asking initially. I never quoted myself and references a note via link, but I guess that'd complete the symmetric list above
Author at Zettelkasten.de • https://christiantietze.de/
@ctietze Please note, that you didn't just abandoned those categorisations. It was years of me negging you to the death with all my skills of being annoying.
@kevin It is quite simple like in a book: The default is that you wrote something yourself. And any reference signifies that it is not purely your own.
I am a Zettler
@Sascha Oh no, that, too?! 😭
Author at Zettelkasten.de • https://christiantietze.de/
In the Zettelkasten, everything that lacks a reference is my own idea. If it later turns out someone else had the same idea, I simply add the reference. At that point it does not matter anymore whether I had the idea too. This is the same in texts (cf. @Sascha ).
In summaries, I use square brackets to signify my own ideas, because everything else is transcribed from the text. It would be a waste of time to add the same reference to every sentence.