- [<] Status Log - created:: 2021-05-24 - status-updated:: 2022-03-16 - current-status:: #articleseed - [S] Marketing - purpose:: Offer a new taxonomy of naming conventions / ways to think about notes to reduce the barrier to entry for people taking notes, would make a candidate for a premium edition of the [[Obsidian Roundup]]. [This conversation](https://discord.com/channels/686053708261228577/710585052769157141/804112450340782081) prompted me to go watch [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGkaqG4ePv4) video because I feel like I'm at the edge of an epiphany with regards to: - concept notes — which I do sort of like wiki pages - epiphany notes — which is how I interpret what most other people call atomic notes - maps of content — which seem to me to be sort of like... thinking out loud about an idea and pulling all the references together, notes Example epiphany note: > According to \[\[litnote|author\]\], economics is blah blah blah, but I think based on \[litnote|title\]\], \[litnote|title\]\], and \[litnote|title\]\], it makes more sense to me that actually (original thought about economics), because (anecdote from \[\[litnote1\]\]) and (anecdote from litnote2)) -- I should (#)followup by (doing research into blah blah blah). One of the things that makes me nervous about atomic notes as I usually see them explained is that I feel like they usually take a more authoritative tone than I'm really willing to do, even in my own head. But if I'm just _recording an epiphany_ I feel like there's a lower barrier to entry. See also: [[types of notes for synthesizing#Reflections]]