Accreditation of responses

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.

Start by reviewing the knowledge-base article linked in the issue and the existing answers whose sources need tracing. Record whether each answer is an official quote, an attributed opinion, or an assumption, with a source link where available. Done means existing answers have citations and future submissions specify their sources and quotation status.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.