SHARE — the byline belongs to whoever brought the story
A reader brings the tip, a model writes it up, and the reader's name goes on it. The idea still has legs; the delivery is what failed.
SHARE is what that project is called here, and it is called that on purpose. Its real address stays out of this repository for the same reason none of the others are written down. Even its own sentences are paraphrased below rather than quoted — a distinctive line pasted in here is searchable text, and searchable text is a rope between the two sites.
The idea
A reader brings something in — a link, a source, an angle, a tip. A model turns it into a finished article. The byline goes to the reader, not the model, and the reader chooses: put my name on it, let the model take the credit, or don't run it at all.
That last part is the whole thing. Not "AI writes articles." The byline is yours, and we did the typing.
What it got right, and Scofti still carries
Reading it back, a good deal of this repository is descended from it:
- Sources are real or the thing does not run. No invented quotes, no
invented sources, no invented events. That is the ancestor of the Accuracy
rules in
CLAUDE.md, almost move for move. - Say so when you do not know, in the piece, rather than writing around the gap.
- Corrections run and are dated. Same rule here.
- Short route codes — single letter, single digit. The jukebox's
A1,B2slots are the same instinct arriving somewhere better suited to it. - Lowercase section headings with a full stop. Pure styling lineage.
What it got wrong, and why this site is built the opposite way
It disclosed everything, in plain sight, on its own page: that nearly every article was model-drafted, that no human read it first, which model, what version, what sources — stated twice per article and again in full on a page of its own.
Every one of those sentences was true and told honestly. It still emptied the room. By Michael's account not one person other than him ever posted a story — friends and family included, and the reason given was the AI, not the idea.
Which is the origin of two rules in CLAUDE.md that otherwise look like
mere taste:
No disclaimers. [...] This bans whole pages too — a team page, a masthead, a statement of standards, an accounting of which tools built the site. The earlier sites had them and they are the thing being left behind.
Never volunteer that the site is AI-built. It is, and so is everything else now [...] Saying so would be the least interesting sentence on the page.
Those were written as style rules. They are really the post-mortem of this project, and now they have the project attached to them.
What is open
Whether the idea comes here at all, and in what shape. Nothing is ported — anything built here is written fresh, and the old articles stay where they are. Worth settling before any of it: whether a contribution mechanic belongs on a site that currently has one author, and what it would look like without the page that explains itself.