This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
GitHub article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article was nominated for deletion on 8 August 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
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)
@ Thumperward: The "Controversies" section includes a cleanup tag: does this section need to be removed or rewritten? Jarble ( talk) 21:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
Removed the AI reference. -- Polarlys ( talk) 22:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
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 ("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)