Folgezettel Controversy
Is it redundant, a clutter, or something essential for note-taking and note-making?
The question of whether Folgezettel is an integral part of Luhmann's principles has been debated for some time, and there is still no general consensus.
Sascha wrote "No, Luhmann Was Not About Folgezettel", https://zettelkasten.de/posts/luhmann-folgezettel-truth/
He called Folgezettel a piece of clutter, and instead, links can do anything, including defining note sequences.
In contrast, Daniel Lüdecke in "You underestimate the power of the Dark Folgezettel", https://strengejacke.wordpress.com/2015/11/01/you-underestimate-the-power-of-the-dark-folgezettel/ said that Folgezettel creates relationship, and links do not emphasize relationship between nodes.
Bob Doto in an article "Folgezettel is more than mechanism " https://bobdoto.computer/folgezettel-mechanics said "Folgezettel establishes a "paper trail" of meaning, showing how an idea was interpreted in its infancy".
Continuing he said: "Forced to situate new notes thematically and visually among others, Folgezettel pushes the note maker toward making at least one connection at the time of import. This initial connection begins the crucial process of linking notes, connecting ideas, and expanding what the note maker may have previously thought about a subject".
Finally, he argued that: "Eufriction is good friction. Just as weight training, writing a book, and giving birth can all be considered a form of eustress, so too is Folgezettel a form of eufriction. It slows the note maker down just enough to force them to think about what they're doing. It builds good habits. It strengthens mental connections. It's the kind of friction needed to help note-takers who tend to drown in capture bloat—always onboarding, never offloading.