Talk:GitHub

Appropriate logo
this Invertocat Logo is more prominently used than the other one in github's website, app etc. Wouldn't it make more sense to replace the current logo with this one? Pritam Shaw🍀 (💬 • 📝) 03:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ MaximusEditor (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Unbalanced statements
I'm only one of the many ex partecipants at GitHub since its first existence days, and I'm not wondering the appearance of Microsoft has changed the entire play. I have been induced as millions others to migrate (escape) from GitHub and it is not a surprise that this mass migration has not even been mentioned in the text of this page. This is only one of the incorrect Microsoft's usual behaviours... omission. But as said: no wonder. Fairchange (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, and welcome to the exodus. There is some criticism and even a paragraph on opportunities for competitors in the article. If you have something to add, bring reliable sources, or use existing ones if any, and add-away! I was also curious why Copilot was not mentioned in context of GitHub. There are sources. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

If there must be a "criticism" section sourced entirely from a couple articles that describe quotes from Torvalds, then it should also reflect that he had quite high praise of the product overall. However I feel that both his praise and criticism are fairly insubstantive at best - the criticism isn't really about the behavior of the product, but that it doesn't police end-user behavior that he finds annoying. I'd prefer to see this section go away since it's just pet peeves about one guy's preferences around what ultimately amounts to choice of work habits. 99.139.221.82 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The "Controversies" section includes a cleanup tag: does this section need to be removed or rewritten? Jarble (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It needs integrated into the article as a whole. For such a long section this is non-trivial, but nonetheless essential in the long run. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead is not objective nor descriptive
I don't think that "AI-powered developer platform" is particularly objective. The company only markets itself as this, but it is actually still a code host.

Also, "AI-powered developer platform" is really vague. ExtremelyUniqueUsername (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I noticed this too, it seems odd to me that "AI-powered" is the first adjective used to describe GitHub... it doesn't really make sense to me and it doesn't look like the article provides where it got this from. Is it actually "AI-powered"? I agree that "AI-powered development platform" is too vague. Wouldn't it be a "source code hosting service"? 76.78.140.68 (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The only part of it that is "AI-powered" is GitHub Copilot, which isn't a core feature of the platform; it's an addon for IDEs to help write code.
 * Please see my reply to Polarlys. I agree that "source code hosting service" will probably suffice, but I think the old description is more descriptive. ExtremelyUniqueUsername (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wholeheartedly agree. It's all a bunch of buzzword nonsense which will surely fade out in a few years. It's a code hosting platform where we upload code, no part of that uses AI. Trikkiboy (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Removed the AI reference. --Polarlys (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This is better, but I think it's still vague. Maybe some form of "Git repository hosting platform"? Though I think that's a little too descriptive and doesn't make sense to the average person. Maybe "source code host" will suffice. To be clear, I am not fully familiar with Wikipedia writing standards, I'm looking at this as a general reader and a GitHub user's perspective.
 * It seems that initially this edit was the first to add "AI-powered developer platform." It was reverted in the following edit but it seems that before this, it was described as a "platform and cloud-based service for development and version control [..." ]. This is probably sufficient.
 * Again, sorry if my suggestions don't comply with Wikipedia writing standards. ExtremelyUniqueUsername (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Number of Employees(5,595) doesn't match with the linked source
Maybe I'm blind, but the sources does not seem to support the number of 5595 employees.

The article states:

> Employees: 5,595

However, the provided sources do not contain specific numbers that match this claim:

1. "GitHub Diversity". GitHub. https://github.com/about/diversity/report

This page lacks absolute employee numbers, is updated annually and currently headlines "Diversity, inclusion, and belonging at GitHub 2023". The URL seems unsuitable as a source for anything.

2. Archived from the original on March 23, 2021. Retrieved November 26, 2019. https://web.archive.org/web/20210322042110/https://github.com/about/diversity/report#

The archived page provides specific figures in a diagram in the first paragraph under "Year of global growth" indicating 1,079 employees for 2019 and 1,677 for 2020, which still does not align with the quoted number.

So neither source seem to include the number of 5595 that is quoted.

alternative sources

1. An article suggests that GitHub had approximately 3,000 employees towards the end of 2022/2023: https://techcrunch.com/2023/02/09/github-lays-off-10-and-goes-fully-remote

2. This weird site seems to be very confident and states exactly 5373, but it's source isn't public: https://craft.co/github/human-capital

I don't know the right number, but it seems to be around >3000 and <6000 for beginning of 2024 176.126.217.22 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Is the iStock explanation necessary?
Is the iStock explanation ("a website that enables designers to market royalty-free digital images.") necessary? I think that's redundant, as the article on iStock is already linked, and provides that information on its own. Sage or something (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)