Two questions for you #pkm folks and those that use #zettelkasten (-derived) methods:
In your eyes,
1.) Should permanent notes be edited once created, or should they let be and a fresh note refering to them be made instead?
2.) what differentiates a permanent note from an evergreen note?
1. Whatever works for you.
2. Whatever you decide, should you choose to use those note categories.
I think what’s important to understand is that the ZK method – or any method for note taking – only works once you’ve made it your own.
Spending to much time thinking about adhering to some arbitrary rules is just a time waster.
That said: Reading about what others do and how they formalize their note taking style provides important inspiration.
@anders The system I seem to have arrived at is that permanent notes are working notes with strong embeddings in time and semantics, so I don‘t try to touch the context once I‘ve created them. Even if I rework the idea, I want to see where I‘ve come from.
By contrast evergreen notes can be touched and reworked and are basically output nodes/aggregation points that purposely break the time embedding of ideas and knowledge.
@spinningthoughts I’ve note types for Highlight (verbatim extraction from a source) and Thought (often sparked by a Highlight) which both very rarely are edited after they are added.
But, just like you, I’ve other note types that are more in flux. Thread the most common one.
@anders Yup! Here‘s another concept that relates to that issue: ontology drift! It‘s what happens when ontological classifications and relations are not applied consistently.
Root issue under the whole "take time to grow your notes system" advice. Yes you‘ll need more structure to manage things… eventually. Not yet. You‘ll want to have your workflows keep consistent enough or you‘ll start suffering "second brain amnesia" or worse, "I know I saw this" gremlins…
@anders First of all, I love that you come back to this old idea, I *totally* love this! This is how dialogue on microblogging should (also) work!
Second, I‘m afraid I grappled for and confabulated the term right then and there to suscintly try and express the idea of "tags define the context of a note in a system" and "for knowledge management to work, we need to trust the system" and "tags as metadata are also a memory aid, just like the note itself" and turn it into A Thing
@spinningthoughts Returned thanks to my GTD-system. Never felt that I had processed this enough, and now it was surfaced in my weekly review. :)
Will try to think about it some more on my own then. Will probably return here once again. :)
@anders I‘ll have to blog about it at some point. I have a bunch of ideas about workflows and systematization (how much, how far, what outcomes are supported and why) laying around that are slowly bubbling up into Something.
Let me know what comes up for you! Maybe also if you have contrasting ideas in your own ideas stack or your references.
I think at this point I‘ll keep an eye on it.
@spinningthoughts Alright, back here once again!
When I returned to Obsidian with Tana, I had the concept of supertags with me. Framed in Obsididan terms, a supertag is a note template. And the most important supertags I have in Tana are Source, Highlight, Thought, Idea, and Thread – something of a sequence where thoughts are sparked by highlights taken from books, podcasts etc. Each supertag is now a note template with a couple of important properties.
@spinningthoughts Three are of particular value: Spark, Topic, and Inbox.
Spark links back to – surprise – the note that sparked the idea to create the new one.
Topic links to one or more topic notes to build clusters of notes.
Inbox links to a supporting note type: Question.
@spinningthoughts 1 - I don’t, no. I treat permanent notes almost as an immutable audit trail of my thinking. And 2 - for me, that’s what differentiates them, evergreen notes evolve in place, there’s a temporal aspect to them. The equivalent to an evergreen note would be multiple permanent notes, branching off each other.
I don’t think either is better than the other, ZK fits better with how I think. They’re probably not even mutually exclusive, I expect others might use them together.
@spinningthoughts 1) create a new one refering is better imho
2) evergreen note ?
@hyde It‘s a concept you‘ll see in the space. Andy Matuschak gets credited by some with having developed the concept.
The standout idea of an evergreen note as defined by most is that evergreen notes are to be grown over time - revisited, edited, grown with new insights - and should have very specific, suscint titles while maintaining atomicity and dense associations.
See https://notes.andymatuschak.org/Evergreen_notes
The concept is sometimes almost synonymous with "permanent note" as used by some.
Information becomes interesting when you can relate it to other information. But for knowledge to emerge, you need to spark it to life by providing some structure. Many fans of Logseq like the idea of dumping their thoughts on the Journals page. As you don’t have to think about where to store information, you gain mental space. But what if you don’t know where you left some information that you need now? If you’ve been using Logseq without caring about any structure, you’ll probably spend more...
Sevoris
Anders Thoresson
Simon Scarfe
Hyde 📷 🖋 
Calixthe
Writing Slowly