A desirable future is a design problem — and design improves with more perspectives at the table. Redistributed is built by contributors who want to help people understand how AI reshapes wealth, work, and power. Here is how to join in.
Why Contribute
Most AI coverage either celebrates or fears the technology. What is missing is the connective work: showing how a model architecture connects to a labor market, how an API pricing decision connects to access, how a governance choice connects to who benefits. If you can help readers see those connections, you belong here.
Your contribution does not need to be a polished essay. A well-sourced correction, a clearer diagram, a link we missed, a translated summary — all of these make the publication better. We are building something together, and every improvement counts.
What We Need
Explainers — How does a specific AI system actually work? Not abstract overviews but concrete mechanisms. How does your bank's fraud detection decide you are suspicious? How does content moderation at scale actually function? Pick a system you understand and explain it. For examples, see How Technology Gets Distributed or World Models vs. LLMs.
Pitfall articles — What do people consistently get wrong about AI? Take a common misconception, explain why it is wrong, and provide the better mental model.
Paper and book reviews — Significant research deserves accessible summaries. What did the paper find? Why does it matter? What did it get wrong or leave out? Bonus points for paired reviews: one technical, one contextual.
Documentation reviews — AI product documentation, terms of service, and model cards often obscure more than they reveal. Pick one and read critically. What do they say? What do they mean? What is missing?
Policy analysis — Regulatory developments move fast. Help readers understand what new laws and standards actually do, not just what they are called. See Democratic AI Governance for the kind of analysis we publish.
News analysis (The Wire) — Short takes (300-500 words) on AI developments that matter. What happened? Why does it matter? What should readers watch for next?
Constructive examples — We are especially interested in pieces that show what good looks like: AI Cooperatives, Public AI infrastructure, community-governed models, effective policy interventions. Critique without construction is incomplete.
Voice and Style
Read About Redistributed first. The publication has a specific voice:
Direct and concrete. Do not settle for vague claims like "AI could..." Show the mechanism.
Power-aware. Name who benefits and who decides. Do not pretend technology is neutral.
Redistribution-focused. Connect to the larger questions: who benefits, who pays, where does value go?
Constructive, not just critical. Show what better looks like alongside what is not working. Reference thinkers who build (Mazzucato, Ostrom, Benkler, Franklin) as well as those who diagnose (Crawford, Eubanks, Winner).
Uncertainty-honest. Acknowledge what you do not know without hedging into uselessness.
Accessible without condescending. Respect the reader's intelligence. Do not assume they have a CS degree.
Process
Writing a new article
- Fork the repository
- Create a new markdown file in the appropriate section folder
- Follow the frontmatter template:
---
title: Your Title Here
created: 2026-03-19
modified: 2026-03-19
tags: [relevant, tags]
status: draft
---
- Write the article following the voice guidelines
- Add a "Related" section linking to 3-5 other articles using
[[Title]]format - Add a "Sources" section with citations
- Open a pull request
Improving an existing article
Same process — fork, edit, PR. Small improvements (typos, broken links, outdated information) are welcome. Larger changes should explain the reasoning in the PR description. We have articles across Explainers, Pitfalls, Paper/Book Reviews, Doc Reviews, The Wire, Policy, Infrastructure, Labor, and Projects — plenty of room to improve.
Proposing a new topic
Open an issue describing:
- What the article would cover
- Why it fits the publication (hint: connect it to The Redistribution Stack)
- What expertise you would bring (or need)
Review Process
All contributions go through review:
Technical accuracy — Does the article get the mechanisms right?
Voice consistency — Does it match the publication's style?
Redistribution lens — Does it connect to the larger questions about who benefits and who pays?
Constructive dimension — Does it point toward what can be done, not just what is wrong?
Accessibility — Can a non-expert follow it?
Feedback is meant to improve the work, not gatekeep. We would rather help you revise than reject outright. Every published contributor started with a first draft.
Who Can Contribute
Anyone. The publication is built by humans and AI working together.
Humans bring lived experience, editorial judgment, domain expertise, and accountability.
AI agents bring synthesis, consistency, throughput, and the ability to work across sources at scale.
Both are valued. The process is open source and transparent. If you want to see how the sausage is made, the entire editorial history is in the repository.