Editorial Policy | GitHub Help Wanted

This site aims to publish helpful, accurate, and actionable content for developers. “Helpful” here means the page can be used to complete a real task: making a pull request, deploying a GitHub Pages site, setting up tests, preparing for an interview, or choosing a workflow with clear trade-offs.

Key Takeaways #

Sources come first: each article includes a References section with authoritative sources.
Structure is consistent: Key Takeaways, step-by-step guidance, tables, and FAQs.
Safety matters: guidance prefers safe defaults, least-privilege access, and reversible changes.
Updates are expected: content is reviewed and corrected when upstream documentation changes.
Transparency is required: affiliate relationships and limitations are disclosed when relevant.

Editorial Principles #

1) Reader-first intent #

Every guide starts with a clear question: what should a reader be able to do after reading it? Content is written to reduce ambiguity, avoid unnecessary jargon, and provide the smallest set of steps that work end-to-end.

2) Accuracy with verifiable references #

Where possible, the site references primary sources: official documentation, standards bodies, and reputable research. This is important because technical details change, and “common knowledge” can drift. When the article makes a claim that affects decisions (a workflow requirement, a security recommendation, a configuration step), it should be easy to verify it in the linked references.

Google’s Search Central documentation highlights the importance of helpful, reliable content and clear structure for readers, and it provides guidance on how content should be created and maintained over time (see the References section).

3) Practicality over hype #

Tools and frameworks are discussed in terms of fit, trade-offs, and constraints—not marketing claims. “Best tool” lists are only useful when they explain:

what the tool is best for,
what it is not good at,
what it costs (or the pricing model),
the learning curve and operational risk,
and common pitfalls during adoption.

4) Safety defaults #

Guides prefer safe and repeatable patterns:

minimal permissions and least-privilege access,
small and reviewable changes,
verification steps and rollback options,
and clarity about assumptions (hosting, repo structure, environment).

Sourcing Standards #

Source types (preferred) #

Official documentation: vendor docs (GitHub Docs, cloud providers, framework docs).
Standards and frameworks: NIST, OWASP, Scrum Guide, IEEE resources.
Research and surveys: DORA research, reputable developer surveys.

What we avoid #

Unverified claims without citations.
Copying long passages from sources; content should be original and explanatory.
Overly promotional writing that hides trade-offs.

Writing Standards #

To keep guides scannable and consistent, articles generally include:

Key Takeaways at the top.
A clear definition section (what it is, what it is not).
At least one step-by-step checklist.
At least one comparison table (tools or approaches).
A Common mistakes section for predictable failure modes.
A FAQ section reflecting real questions.
A References section with 5+ authoritative sources.

Review, Updates, and Corrections #

Review workflow #

Before publishing, the team checks:

Does the article match search intent and solve a real task?
Are the steps reproducible and ordered logically?
Are the claims supported by references?
Are security and privacy implications called out where relevant?

Updates #

Technical content changes. Pages may be updated when:

upstream docs change (UI, settings names, default behaviors),
tools deprecate features or change pricing models,
security best practices evolve,
or readers report issues and edge cases.

Corrections #

If a page contains an error, the goal is to correct it quickly and clearly. Corrections prioritize accuracy and clarity over preserving the original wording.

AI-Assisted Drafting #

Some drafts may be assisted by tools (for outlining, restructuring, or generating checklists). Regardless of tooling, the editorial responsibility remains the same:

ensure claims are supported by sources,
avoid hallucinated details (especially version-specific steps),
and keep writing original, not copied from references.

Affiliate and Conflict-of-Interest Policy #

If an article contains affiliate links, the disclosure is included in the Disclaimer. The content aim is criteria-based recommendations (fit, trade-offs, learning curve) rather than sponsorship-driven endorsements.

Linking Policy #

Articles generally avoid manual internal linking so the site’s internal-link system can maintain consistent structure and prevent over-linking. External links are used primarily for verification and further reading, with a preference for official documentation and credible research.

Feedback Loop #

Reader feedback is a core part of maintenance. When a reader reports an issue with a page, the fastest way to resolve it is to provide a link to the primary source that shows the correct behavior. That evidence-first approach keeps updates grounded and makes it easier to correct the content without introducing new errors.