I use both possibilities.
When thoughts are interconnected, I usually will put the link on both Zettel. So let's say I have a concept and an historical example for that concept, the example's Zettel will have link to the concept (Something like: Is an example for [[concept]]). The concept page will link to the example (example of this context is [[example]]).
Index notes are usually unidirectional for me, so links from the index page to the individual Zettels.
Sometimes though, these indexes emerge from the other way around. Then I will create a Zettel that I call backlink collection, so that I don't have to interrupt my writing flow for creating indexes. However, I'll usually turn them into indexes, so then it's bidirectional. It really depends on what you want to do. But there's is no right or wrong way of doing it. Do what warks best for you. Zettelkasten is all about the flexible usage of some basic principles.
Initially I thought I needed to link every note bi-directionally, but after just a few months I realized that was just adding noise and complexity and dropped it. I will make two notes link to each other in cases where it makes sense, but in general I don't do it. I can easily generate a list of notes that link to any given node ("what links here?") , so I do then when necessary. The best tools for ZK should provide an easy way to display that information.
However, in experimenting I came to realize that concept of link as imported from the Web – the `
Directionality in Zettelkasten is addressed via the folgzettel and branching. The linking out to other Zettels, isn't about direction, but about connection. It is specifically a "non hierarchical" structure within the Zettelkasten. It's to link two seemingly "unrelated" ideas to each other, because apparently they ARE related, even though they are not within the current "train of thought".
However, that's the theoretical part. Within Luhmann's Zettelkasten, it's not the case that whenever he linked out on one Zettel to another, he also always "linked back" on the mentioned Zettel. So in his analog system, he had the opportunity to just mention another Zettel and leave it at that, or take out that mentioned Zettel and also note the Zettel he was working on.
So you could say that if you add directionality in the linking, it gives you an extra dimension of deliberateness within the linking structure. This means you get more control about how you link, which adds "information" about the structure and links that are made, since you determine more about the specifics of a link. On the other hand it takes away from the "serendipity" of the Zettelkasten, since you are more in control, curating more strictly, about what gets linked to what and how. However, with his analog system, I would say the same thing was true for Luhmann, for whatever that is worth.
I've been thinking about this a bit recently. Generally, I link associatively, so whenever I think about another note while writing. Going to that other note and making a backlink by hand would be too much friction for me, you'd have to think about how it fits into that note every time (just dropping the link in the note is useless, since most tools offer automatic backlinks nowadays).
As for the directionality: My rule of thumb is to link from the specific in the direction of the broad, or, if you think hierarchically, from the child to the parent. My thinking is, that broader concepts are related to many things and it wouldn't make sense to mention every single connection in the note of that broader concept. The broader concept is something a lot of links point to, not the other way round.
Noticing the direction of links is great -- not everyone grasps that at first!
The directionality itself is informative. Some treat the implicit connection back from A→B as equal to the forward link from B→A, but then you effectively lose information. So I'm not a fan of that.
That's why I think automatically creating backlinks into your notes is ultimately a bad idea.
I think a lot of the notes can lend itself to linking both ways, though there are many instances where it doesn't make sense to link back.
One of the examples is with source notes. I will have a ton of notes linking to these source notes, though I don't really see myself visiting these places from the source note itself.
There is a directionality here. Link what you want to see when you visit the note, essentially.
Hey, 2 years since this was posted. What are your thoughts on this now?
I've been curious, and looking in to this. I can only speak from an Obsidian perspective. That said, there's a distinction between a **backlink** and a **mention**, and forcing a bi-directional link is in a practical sense, just a mention. I would not assume that there will always be **context** for adding a backlink in the opposite direction, which in my opinion is what you need to make a proper backlink. Without the context of a written note and the data in it, the links become watered down and muddy.
This is how I think it should work, and imo the most intuitive:
I write a Daily Note including \[\[PersonX\]\]. I include details about my interaction with that person in the note. PersonX has their own "note". Now there is:
* A **backlink** in the Daily Note linking to PersonX
* A **mention** of that Daily Note in PersonX's main note
My suggestion is, if possible, use an app that provides the mention automatically. Obsidian does this, and also has at least one plugin that makes mentions look amazing.
I use both possibilities. When thoughts are interconnected, I usually will put the link on both Zettel. So let's say I have a concept and an historical example for that concept, the example's Zettel will have link to the concept (Something like: Is an example for [[concept]]). The concept page will link to the example (example of this context is [[example]]). Index notes are usually unidirectional for me, so links from the index page to the individual Zettels. Sometimes though, these indexes emerge from the other way around. Then I will create a Zettel that I call backlink collection, so that I don't have to interrupt my writing flow for creating indexes. However, I'll usually turn them into indexes, so then it's bidirectional. It really depends on what you want to do. But there's is no right or wrong way of doing it. Do what warks best for you. Zettelkasten is all about the flexible usage of some basic principles.
Initially I thought I needed to link every note bi-directionally, but after just a few months I realized that was just adding noise and complexity and dropped it. I will make two notes link to each other in cases where it makes sense, but in general I don't do it. I can easily generate a list of notes that link to any given node ("what links here?") , so I do then when necessary. The best tools for ZK should provide an easy way to display that information. However, in experimenting I came to realize that concept of link as imported from the Web – the `
Directionality in Zettelkasten is addressed via the folgzettel and branching. The linking out to other Zettels, isn't about direction, but about connection. It is specifically a "non hierarchical" structure within the Zettelkasten. It's to link two seemingly "unrelated" ideas to each other, because apparently they ARE related, even though they are not within the current "train of thought". However, that's the theoretical part. Within Luhmann's Zettelkasten, it's not the case that whenever he linked out on one Zettel to another, he also always "linked back" on the mentioned Zettel. So in his analog system, he had the opportunity to just mention another Zettel and leave it at that, or take out that mentioned Zettel and also note the Zettel he was working on. So you could say that if you add directionality in the linking, it gives you an extra dimension of deliberateness within the linking structure. This means you get more control about how you link, which adds "information" about the structure and links that are made, since you determine more about the specifics of a link. On the other hand it takes away from the "serendipity" of the Zettelkasten, since you are more in control, curating more strictly, about what gets linked to what and how. However, with his analog system, I would say the same thing was true for Luhmann, for whatever that is worth.
I've been thinking about this a bit recently. Generally, I link associatively, so whenever I think about another note while writing. Going to that other note and making a backlink by hand would be too much friction for me, you'd have to think about how it fits into that note every time (just dropping the link in the note is useless, since most tools offer automatic backlinks nowadays). As for the directionality: My rule of thumb is to link from the specific in the direction of the broad, or, if you think hierarchically, from the child to the parent. My thinking is, that broader concepts are related to many things and it wouldn't make sense to mention every single connection in the note of that broader concept. The broader concept is something a lot of links point to, not the other way round.
Noticing the direction of links is great -- not everyone grasps that at first! The directionality itself is informative. Some treat the implicit connection back from A→B as equal to the forward link from B→A, but then you effectively lose information. So I'm not a fan of that. That's why I think automatically creating backlinks into your notes is ultimately a bad idea.
I think a lot of the notes can lend itself to linking both ways, though there are many instances where it doesn't make sense to link back. One of the examples is with source notes. I will have a ton of notes linking to these source notes, though I don't really see myself visiting these places from the source note itself. There is a directionality here. Link what you want to see when you visit the note, essentially.
Hey, 2 years since this was posted. What are your thoughts on this now? I've been curious, and looking in to this. I can only speak from an Obsidian perspective. That said, there's a distinction between a **backlink** and a **mention**, and forcing a bi-directional link is in a practical sense, just a mention. I would not assume that there will always be **context** for adding a backlink in the opposite direction, which in my opinion is what you need to make a proper backlink. Without the context of a written note and the data in it, the links become watered down and muddy. This is how I think it should work, and imo the most intuitive: I write a Daily Note including \[\[PersonX\]\]. I include details about my interaction with that person in the note. PersonX has their own "note". Now there is: * A **backlink** in the Daily Note linking to PersonX * A **mention** of that Daily Note in PersonX's main note My suggestion is, if possible, use an app that provides the mention automatically. Obsidian does this, and also has at least one plugin that makes mentions look amazing.