> Linking to a short amount of text and a couple of pictures. Unlike pastebin you can include diagrams and such in your text.

OK, that makes sense. Could also be implemented as a git repo containing only README.md, but gist gives you more flexibility as everything doesn't have to be embedded in markdown.

Gists are forkable too. Gists are very useful for getting input on small snippets of code the might not otherwise be accessible to everyone being asked to provide feedback.

Why not use a regular git repo? Why do we need two species of git repo?

Gists are quick and dirty. When I use a Gist, I don't need a full repo. A full repo could do the job, but it'd be like hauling groceries in the back of a dump truck.

Why do we "need" them? We don't, but they're nice to have. I have all sorts of things in my life that aren't needs, but I'm still glad I have them.

What is it about a full repo that makes you think it is heavyweight for the task?

Not the original poster but from my perspective it's the lack of tools in github to manage the proliferation of repos. I'd like to categorise them when I'm browsing my own repos and expose those tags to other people: my hairbrained experiment repos, my serious OSS efforts, my fork-to-keep-a-stable-version-of-some-remote-project repos...

I could do something like that by creating a load of organisations but it'd be nice if there was a simpler way. Gists provide a very primitive way to divide things up, but at least it's something!

Yes, that's a good point. Although gists too is a flat list I think. But at least with gists and repos we have two flat lists.