Inspirations for my approach to this concept:

what am i trying to do here?

  • embrace vulnerability—learning in public is scary but doing mildly embarrassing things is good for you
  • write for the audience of my past and future selves; include enough context to get by, not much more. only include what interests me & i think i’ll want to return to. antiencyclopedic.
  • no presumption of expertise over any topic
  • a foundation upon which my other work is built. aiming for basic knowledge synthesis. See workflow pipeline.
  • placeholders, incomplete entries, and redlinks are OK. low-friction enough that I can add a note even on a bad day.
  • aim for interlinking over use of tags and folders—but use them when appropriate. rhizomatic vs. hierarchical or taxonomical approach to knowledge organization. atomicity for ease of granular recall/synthesis… but also i find a giant folder of notes with no folders visually intimidating/messy and i’m less likely to use it, in which case… what’s the point?
  • incompleteness-as-wholeness. dynamic > definitive notes. it’s about saving myself work, not making more.
  • recognition of how my brain works very quickly and also very slowly; quick capture with ability to go back and expand on, nurture etc my ideas.
  • simplicity; minimal media integration. re-orient around text.
  • space where the personal interacts with the global. (my newsletter is similar but with more of a diary-like orientation, and more fixed in time.

these goals are heavily informed by a disabled approach to computing and neurodivergence-supporting PKM (as opposed to the dark side of PKM.)


from obsidian.rocks’s post on digital gardening:

  • Digital gardens are about exploring and not explaining
  • Digital gardens are link-based, not time based
  • Digital gardens are constantly growing, changing, and evolving
  • Digital gardens are imperfect and experimental