You're confusing public goods with common goods. That's your personal tragedy of the commons.

> “The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory claiming that individuals tend to exploit shared resources so that demand outweighs supply, and it becomes unavailable for the whole.” (Investopedia)

EXACTLY. This is NOT what is happening in the case of Github. As explained plenty of times, Github has the incentive to INCREASE their supply, making MORE available for the whole, if the whole demands MORE. Also, they are a centralized, coordinated entity, that can change the rules for the whole flock, which is one of the famous coordination problems associated with common goods. They can also discriminate between their contractual partners and optimize for multi-period results for reducing moral hazards and free-riding. It must be stupidity to not see these fundamental difference on the systems level.

> I didn’t make up the Wikipedia example, it’s in Wikipedia being offered as one of the canonical examples of digital commons

Yeah, the example in the article is Wikipedia, not Github. That's your example. All my statements refer to 100% to Github and probably only 90% to Wikipedia. That said, there are true digital commons, e.g. the copper cables connecting the houses in your street. Unsufficient number of bands in old wifi standards.

Since Dunning-Kruger has entered the chat, I'm going to leave. Have a good day; you will have a hard time having serious conversations if you do not accept that it helps everyone to favor precise language over watering down the meaning of concepts, like some social scientists and journalists seem to prefer for self-marketing purposes.