Accreditation of responses

[snowkidind]

Considering the text located at:

https://kb.omgcommunity.org/omisego-official-guide-1/why-did-a-for-profit-company-choose-to-invest-in-building-a-public-network

I am left with a couple questions:

1. Who said this?
2. Is the knowledge base comprised of all "official" answers or tweaked versions of official answers?

The answers to these are ambiguous to me. And that is the issue. I feel there should be a source cited on every answer. Example, if Jun answered this question in an AMA there should contain a link to the AMA and the quote should be word for word, in quotes. If the source was a redditor who was not affiliated with omise then it should be cited as such and considered an opinion or an unofficial assumption.

Work should be done to dilligently trace the sources of the existing answers, and this information should be a submission requirement for further additions to the knowledge base.

Wikipedia handles this issue with three sections on each page: References, Further Reading, and External Links.

The end result would be a much more citable set of documentation which also links to the source of the data in each answer.

[jet86]

This particular question and answer comes directly from the Official Guide https://cdn.omise.co/omg/officialguide.pdf

This raises an excellent point though about tracking the sources of information compiled here.

[Ro5s]

Agree with need to include citations. Folks might assume this is a low-quality kb otherwise. Though, I think a level of tweaking and paraphrasing is helpful for patchwork topics like PoA, with multiple sources saying similar things. I guess we can ask, more generally: is the KB a simple explainer of OMG topics (community parsing together), or more an infodump of official sources organized by OMG topics for folks to parse themselves? In any event, I will try and include links to anything I add here.

[snowkidind]

I wonder if there would be some way of organizing a hierarchy to filter the information into some basic categories in order for the reader to understand what they are looking at. I found this "DIKW Pyramid" Hierarchy to be of interest, maybe we can structure it similarly...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIKW_pyramid

Perhaps a structure as such for each topic:

Wisdom - Overall takeaways that represent what we know at the time.
Knowledge - Facts that support the takeaways.
Information - Who said What, Citations.
Data - Links and references to resources which validate.

Additionally, it would be cool if each section could be pulled in via an api in order to allow external applications to format it.

[Ro5s]

I like that. E.g., from that filter (very rough draft):

Wisdom - Tesuji milestone is close to completion.
Knowledge - (i) PoA on internal testnet, (ii) contract audits in final stages, [etc.]
Information - (i) OmiseGO: "PoA is what’s currently on internal testnet" (OmiseGO AMA #2 - October 22, 2018); (ii) OmiseGO: "mostly-done Quantstamp audits" (OmiseGO AMA #2 - October 22, 2018)
Data - (i) https://www.reddit.com/r/omise_go/comments/9qemoy/omisego_ama_2_october_22_2018/, (ii) https://www.reddit.com/r/omise_go/comments/9qemoy/omisego_ama_2_october_22_2018/.

[jet86]

I like that idea conceptually, but I do wonder if it will overcomplicate things (the answer may be "no" - I'm just wondering). It will be important to make it as easy as possible to add new answers to the kb and to ensure everything remains accurate and up to date.

[snowkidind]

Proposal for a standardized format for applying metadata markdown files containing knowledge base data.

Structure.docx