I suppose it’s a very common question, alas, I have trouble finding “non-generalized” answer.
My approach for literature notes is to write my own summary with rare sprinkles of quotes (almost none for articles) (this is crucial, any other way of doing it just doesn’t work for my brain). Then, digest them to create permanent notes:
- Extract quote notes if it seems like they would be useful. Extracted quote is completely replaced with link to the quote note.
- Create factual notes (often, the biggest pile). They are linked, but not replaced to keep summary readable.
- Create opinion notes (my own — rare, “just source” or “source + own” are more common). Also links, no replacement.
So, I was converting my old notes and stumbled upon several literature notes that are very atomic. The whole note can simply be converted to opinion note as is, because there is just one self-contained idea and it’s already summarized in my own words. Thus, literature and permanent note look… almost identical (at the moment of creation). This is that corner case that prompted me to think about the consequences of my current approach.
You may noticed that it leads to lots of linking to/from a literature notes. Subsequently, there is often double linking, e.g., from literature note to the fact note and from opinion note to the same fact note. Do you think that can cause problems in the long run for reviewing and discovery?