How Do Knowledge-Sharing Authors Write?

When trying to write, I always feel that what I write has been said by others, and bringing it out again seems like parroting others' ideas. Yet it's impossible to reinvent knowledge or viewpoints without any basis. So where should the "newness" of an article lie? According to academic writing standards, "new" means things or perspectives on things that predecessors have not discussed.

New things naturally appear over time, and topics for discussion can flow endlessly. Although we still re-examine with old viewpoints, in new contexts we can compare the explanatory power and limitations of different viewpoints. Try to give readers an image, such as a person facing a problem that needs explanation. This is consistent with the purpose of this type of writing: requiring a complete argumentative structure to obtain a relatively acceptable answer. The "old" viewpoints cited therein then have contextual connections, making their existence itself more reasonable.

When existing viewpoints cannot justify themselves, there is an opportunity to provide more conjectures and subject them to testing. This is the "new viewpoint." This is of course more difficult, especially when you don't want to be someone who only raises questions without trying to solve them. In addition, textbook (or wiki) writing requires even more structural completeness. At this point, the definition of structure is crucial—what should be included, how to organize it—all require great consideration.

For writing in the Heart Ruler project, I think it should balance both "raising questions" and "textbook" approaches. "Raising questions" means that for the target users, we need to portray their key issues (that is, what content we hope to provide); while the "textbook" model requires that while answering questions, space for expansion should be left, and some deeper content should be appropriately touched upon lightly to serve the purpose of indicating direction.