WeWrite aims to become "GitHub for writers" … but not just self-described writers; people who keep notes, people who have inside jokes with their friends, stories from their grandma, everyone whose thoughts can be shaped into strings of text.

Thus, WeWrite could become GitHub for Thought. Everyone thinks. Not everyone calls themselves a writer.

For those who aren't familiar, GitHub is for programmers to host their code (which is just text!) in a version-controlled way, and it also allows them to collaborate with others. WeWrite has per-page version history and various ways of collaborating, like moderation and forming communities to skip moderation.

Why not just use GitHub?

Because git sucks. It's confusing and complex. A pull is actually a push. Up is down. Yes is no.

Also it's not pretty. In Apple Books or Kindle the words are treated with dignity, but on GitHub your words are surrounded by tons of buttons and options and stuff that makes you feel like you're in the cockpit of a spaceship.

Meanwhile, you can just think freely inside of Apple Notes. That's pretty. Pretty enough for celebrities to use Apple Notes screenshots for their whacky post-cancelation apologies.

GitHub allows users to "sponsor" a repository (a collection of files, a project) but on WeWrite, each "file" (each page) is a recurring donation target. This allows each of your pieces to compete on the marketplace of ideas.

From a technical perspective, it's possible that we'll use git (which is open source) as the backend of our page versioning system, but again it'll be cloaked in an easy to use interface. God forbid we subject our poor users to the hell of using git.