Growth of zettelkasten and note taking

Yes, I’m using it in the sense @eastgate describes. I’m not aware of the acronym having another meaning—but that doesn’t mean there aren’t expressions using the same initials.

The acronym’s meaning/instant in use is not cryptic and is literally the meaning of the source phrase. It is pertinent when working from memory, and writing in-non-real-time to an audience of (partial) strangers). I learnt the phrase online in the mid-90s and I don’t think the meaning has drifted. I use it to imply that I may be mis-remembering, e.g. because I don’t have the true source to hand. Thus, another person having a different recommendation isn’t starting an argument and tacitly inviting others to choice in with a better/more complete description if they know.

ISTR (I seem to recall) has a similar usage. I think a lot of these acronyms, which are essentially shortened ‘filler’ phrases, date from early online days when everything was slower/more limited . Thus such formalised concision was helpful. I guess the habit has stuck. :slight_smile:

Does that help any?

2 Likes

That is nice.
Thank you for the suggestion.

I use similar method. But, I do’'t use the zettel approach because I don’t want to break the flow of ideas (chain of arguments). So, when I am reading an article, I keep just one note in Tinderbox where I write the core ideas.

I then simply highlight the texts that are very important (as you put the findings section/note)

What I don’t like about the idea of zettel is this dogma to put “single idea into a single note.”. I don’t find that practical, even impossible as things get tough (complicated chain of arguments).