For example, the Sculpt 26.04 documentation still points users to GitHub, despite the migration to Codeberg.
I’m always grateful whenever someone points out mistakes or inaccuracies in our documentation. However, this particular example is not an error. Please note that the current version of Sculpt (26.04) was officially released in April, before Genode’s git repository was migrated to Codeberg in May. So the steps for reproducing the official image are naturally referring to the git repository at the time of release. This is intentional.
Unlike a wiki, the Sculpt manual is not a living document but a historical record (like the manuals of all previous releases). People who want to stay on the heels of the development in-between releases can find the current version of the text in the public git repository. The links were updated to Codeberg two months ago.
On a personal note, please consider that the tone of your original posting may be perceived as impolite, which is probably the reason for the tone of @G0retZ reply. Personally, I would not even have bothered to reply to such an overgeneralized and AI-smelly statement of opinion.
A more sensible way for positively interacting with our community is to present your interests in the form of offerings, not demands. For a perfect example, topic Emacs major mode for HID makes an offering for people who prefer Emacs over Vim. How cool is that! Even though I’m not an Emacs user, it made me so happy, and it actually spawned my curiosity in Emacs! If the interest in Emacs had been articulated in the form of a demand, it would have been perceived as a mere distraction with no positive effect on anyone.
Granted, an offering is much more expensive (in terms of effort) than a demand. But it is also much more valuable.