I actually agree that the Arch docs are absolutely excellent in their level of detail, precision and helpfulness. I also think its possible for them to simultaneously be a gate keeping mechanism and stand by what I said
Gatekeeping is an active effort to keep others out of something (out of a field, away from information, etc.). Where is the active effort to keep people out of Arch when the documentation is made available for free?
I think you're talking past the person you're replying to.
Not sure why you use the word "active", as it's unnecessary. Gatekeeping is just erecting barriers of whatever sort in an effort to keep people out. Making install documentation that is very very detailed to the point that some people will be turned off by it and go away could very much be considered gatekeeping. Even if that documentation is objectively good documentation.
Obviously we can't know the motives of the people who wrote the documentation. But it's fair to look at the docs and believe that the authors are engaging in gatekeeping. That belief might be wrong, but there's no evidence either way. Unless the authors have come out and said something about this topic, of course. And even then, it depends on if you believe what they've said.
It's subjective.
(I personally have no dog in this race. I don't use or particularly care about Arch; Debian suits me just fine. My main experience with Arch is positive, though: their wiki is amazing, and when I search for answers for various questions about Linux and Linux desktop software, the Arch wiki comes up very often, and is nearly always helpful.)
> Making install documentation that is very very detailed to the point that some people will be turned off by it and go away could very much be considered gatekeeping.
In my times, we called such people lazy. No gatekeeping needed.
I haven't had that feeling. In fact, installing Arch Linux is easy. The hardest part is the bad partition editor UX and that you need to have an understanding of how UEFI booting works. There is also the problem of GRUB being a terrible bootloader, but that is another story for another day.
The install wiki is full of outdated information that causes people to install outdated and old methods of doing things. So I wouldn't advise people to use it, other than the fact there's no other option.
I find that hard to believe. I've always found the Arch Wiki to be excellent and very up to date. Do you have any examples of articles which document outdated ways to do things?
If you have found incorrect information, please edit the wiki to improve it.
