Sure it’s a Git-based wiki. It’s a flat-file content system with full linking and all; it’s not using any special GitHub functionality at all. You can browse this wiki in a text editor (some will let you easily jump between files, e.g. `gf` in Vim, and some won’t), or see it rendered to HTML on any mainstream Git hosting service.
This was my thought as well. What do people disagree about re the definition of 'git-based' wiki?
Do the purists who object to this (in a "Linus Torvalds' definition of git kind of way") fundamentally believe that there should be no central "origin" of any kind in a repo?
Sure, the main attraction in a DVCS is that everyone has a complete copy of the code and can pull branches or integrate changes from anyone else into their work, but eventually these changes have to 'land' somewhere and for most things, that's GitHub/GitLab/whatever other hosting service with git support.
^ This is - for practical purposes - my definition of origin.
Meh, it's usable w/out github but you'll be reading raw markdown files (unless you get your own markdown renderer which isn't that big of a deal). But yeah, it's either an incomplete git-based wiki or a complete github based wiki.
