Forum Posts Feed
Re: Wiki notetaking in ConnectedText, & wiki Brainstorm?
< Next Message | Back to archived message list | Previous Message >
Note: This message is from the outliners.com archive kindly provided by Dave Winer.
Outliners.com Message ID: 4477
Posted by sub
2005-10-30 04:39:33
I think the current Brainstorm design couldn’t allow this kind of approach, though early discussions on a Brainstorm Pro which would handle RTF and use as its basic information unit a character, rather than a paragraph, sound more open.
However, I wouldn’t bet on Brainstorm Pro ever actually happening, unless the Brainstorm development team is externally funded and enhnanced. The current WIBNI (Wouldn’t It Be Nice If) list is already very long and linked to the present concept. The closest it comes to WIKI is Internal Links/Pointers, which again refers to the whole entry.
By the way, I personally like this non-WIKI concept because it enforces structure; indeed, structure is an inherent part of the original Brainstorm concept. For example, you are not allowed to make a namesake subsidiary to “itself”. In WIKI you can, because there is no hierarchy.
The Brainstorm concept aims to help one _make_sense_ of complex and interlinked information by structuring it, not just recording it. I have the impression that recent postings in this forum actually promote enhancing the structural/organising potential with high-level tools such an editable/interactive Aerial View and numbered “bins”.
What I’m getting at is that sometimes having everything one wants is not the best of worlds; as useful as WIKIs are in researching material I would find it impossible to base a document on my own WIKI notes.
If you do like Brainstorm’s approach (and not everyone will), then I would suggest that you use Namesake Keywords/Keyphrases above/below your text entries to link them together. From my experience, this actually helps one identify the key concepts in one’s notes; for example, a Keyword/Keyphrase might not even be contained in the actual note.
alx