I fixed a small issue in my theme that I’d noticed, where other people’s sites weren’t picking up my author details. The problem? My author info wasn’t included in the entries. I had a site-wide h-card but I hadn’t got it in the entries themselves.

The process for figuring out who has written a post is referred to as authorship, and the IndieWeb wiki page on it is very helpful. Also thanks to Sven for the help.

I just wrote a big ol’ blog post about indiewebifying my event discovery and RSVPs. Thinking about it just now, however, it’s a bit of a mish-mash between why I wanted to do it, and how I did it.

For someone coming to the post who is new to the IndieWeb, it’s probably bit off-putting (and maybe fuel for the fire of ‘IndieWeb is too complicated’). And for someone who already knows about the IndieWeb, but isn’t using WordPress, they might skip over the hows and in the process miss some of the whys.

So in future I might try and split these kinds of articles into two – a ‘why’ post, and a ‘how I did it’ post. The ‘why’ post will kind of be my behaviour-driven development specs, so to speak, and probably mostly links to various pattern pages on the IndieWeb wiki. And the ‘how’ post will get into the weeds of one very specific implementation, liberally referring back to the ‘why’ post.

I think that would work well and make the articles a bit more reusable and less niche.

Been doing a small bit of wiki gardening on my books pages today. Nothing major, just starting to link the different ideas from different books to the concepts they’re discussing.

I really like how Nadia Eghbal‘s writings are peppered with cultural references. When I’m getting to the point where I’m writing longer-form articles on an idea, I would like them to have a similar cross-pollination vibe. Like Mark Fisher, too.

org-roam has a nice feature that lets you graph the notes in your wiki and the links between them. I just saw that there’s a pull request to produce that map for the current note.

When that lands, I’d like to try and hook up my publish step to add the note-specific graph to each published page. That’d give a navigation path something like the one in FedWiki:


Though I would still want my own curated paths in addition to this generated map o’ everything.

The Roam approach to note-taking is to start with your daily page, and then link to things from there. This makes a lot of sense to me, and fits in with my current process for the blog and wiki combo.

You just start with whatever is currently on your mind, and that goes in the stream, but links out to things in the wiki. I tend to copy it into the wiki at the same time, too, if it makes sense. Probably one thing to think about though is what in the stream do I want to be public versus private – that would change the workflow a bit.

I posted that previous note with a link to a draft article in it mainly so it could be shown at the online HWC – but also it marks the point that I’m starting trying out working on draft articles ‘in public’. They are still tucked away in my wiki, so not really that public, but at least online somewhere in case (as sometimes happens) I never finish them – some of the nascent bits will at least still be there available to the world and possibly useful.

Mentioned on Tom Critchlow’s website tour was Venkatesh Rao’s ‘calculus of grit‘. (Gotta say, finding some of these terms for basically ‘doing stuff on your website’ a teensy bit overwroughtโ€ฆ but fair play, naming concepts does give you something to refer to and discuss).

I’ve not read the full article yet, but sounds like it’s a way of tending to the garden of your wiki.

It boils down to:

  • release work often
  • reference your own thinking
  • rework the same ideas again and again

I’m trying this out at the moment – putting thoughts in the stream, linking them back to ideas in the wiki, and updating those wiki pages as I go along. Going alright so far.

Via a link to Jared Pereira’s personal website tours posted on the IndieWeb chat, I stumbled on a bit of a goldmine of thoughts on the blog and wiki combo over at Tom Critchlow’s blog.

Lots of interesting new terms:

Also learned about are.na, which says it provides ‘tools for thinking, together‘. Which I like the sound of, but as are.na is a silo, it’s not something I will be using personally.