Arch Linux

mackin_cheese

Member

Registered: 2025-01-07

Posts: 68

Should the Arch Wiki Separate Official and Community-Supported Methods

This might seem like an unusual suggestion, but I believe it’s worth discussing. When Disney revamped the Star Wars canon, they introduced two distinct categories: official canon and legacy canon. This change led to a major update on the Star Wars wiki, where articles were divided into separate tabs for official and legacy information, making it clear which material belonged to which category.

Here’s an example of how it works: Luke Skywalker on the Star Wars Wiki.

Could we apply a similar approach to the Arch Wiki by introducing tabs or sections to separate officially supported methods from AUR-related content?

Here’s why I think this could be beneficial:

    Clarifying Support Boundaries: Many users, especially beginners, encounter issues after following AUR-related instructions on the Arch Wiki. They often assume these methods are officially supported simply because they’re documented there. Clear separation would prevent confusion and set proper expectations about what Arch officially supports.

    Reducing Frustration: On forums and Subreddits, I frequently see posts where users struggle with issues caused by AUR packages or methods, mistakenly blaming Arch for problems. Clear labeling could reduce these frustrations by making it obvious which methods are at the user's own risk.

    Highlighting Risks: For example, articles like Installing Arch Linux on ZFS not only document unsupported setups but also recommend using an unofficial ISO. While useful for advanced users, this could mislead beginners who might not understand the implications of following unsupported paths.

    Better Education for Beginners and Stubborn Users Alike: While I don’t believe Arch should be made more "beginner-friendly" in the conventional sense, separating official and AUR methods reinforces the idea that Arch is a "your system, your responsibility" distribution. It helps set the boundary that Arch only provides official support for certain things, while AUR and other methods are entirely community-driven and user-maintained.

    Encouraging Self-Reliance: This separation would make it clearer that using AUR or other unofficial methods relies heavily on the goodwill of the community rather than guaranteed support from Arch maintainers. It’s a subtle but effective way to educate users about Arch's philosophy without watering it down.

In essence, this change could lead to a more organized and user-friendly experience on the Arch Wiki while staying true to the core principles of Arch Linux. It could also improve the overall understanding of what "official support" entails, reducing miscommunication and friction within the community.

Would this be feasible to implement? And if so, what would be the best way to approach it? I’d love to hear thoughts on whether this separation would add value and how it might be structured.

Head_on_a_Stick

Member

From: The Wirral

Registered: 2014-02-20

Posts: 8,642

Website

Re: Should the Arch Wiki Separate Official and Community-Supported Methods

Clarifying Support Boundaries

These are user forums. The users get to decide which problems they want to try to help with. The only "support boundaries" are those imposed by third-party installers and guides and defined in the forum rules.

---

Para todos todo, para nosotros nada

mackin_cheese

Member

Registered: 2025-01-07

Posts: 68

Re: Should the Arch Wiki Separate Official and Community-Supported Methods

I meant clarifying support on the wiki's end concerning Arch Linux, not the forum end. This is focused on the wiki, but you do bring up a good point. This is a user forum, which does tie in to a point i made in the post, anything not officially supported relies HEAVILY on the goodwill of the community when it comes to providing support.

Last edited by mackin_cheese (2025-01-14 15:08:12)

V1del

Forum Moderator

Registered: 2012-10-16

Posts: 23,641

Re: Should the Arch Wiki Separate Official and Community-Supported Methods

This feels like a whole lot of work for little benefit. The type of user that would benefit from realizing the distinction is the type of user that doesn't care about the distinction. Every link to the AUR already has the AUR subscript and anyone that cares about that should be familiar with the relevant implications as. described in https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_User_Repository

Last edited by V1del (2025-01-14 15:18:29)

mackin_cheese

Member

Registered: 2025-01-07

Posts: 68

Re: Should the Arch Wiki Separate Official and Community-Supported Methods

That's a great point as well! Just a fun idea I had, but you are correct, the userbase that this would be for, would likely not care about the distinction anyways.