The questions in kb.md are too long. They need to be edited to follow the QnA data guidelines below, as suggested by @SAAnderson

QnA data guidelines

Starter for some guidelines around building good QnA training data for a bot service.

Questions

• To help the models the questions in the training data need to succinct:
  • Not this: "How safe will staking be? Will the “average Joe” be able to stake without having to worry about his/hers OMGs? Will there be certain precautions that will need to be taken in order to prevent being hacked?"
  • ...but this: "How safe will staking be?"
  • ...or this: "Will staking be safe?"
• We probably need to be careful about having overlapping Q&As in different places
  • TODO: Can we prioritise one answer over another with metadata?
• If the questions are short we can probably automate generating phrasing variations to help the models
  • You can plug Active learning into the Azure bot service now too

Answers

• Should be triaged to make sure they are acceptable (clear, correct, free from the usual troll stuff if they are from the community)
  • TODO: how to sign these off? Pull request?
• The QnA bot should provide the pointer to the correct response, not the answer. IMO: PickledN

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.

It's getting to be time to tweak the readme for this repository a little bit. It's the first thing one sees when stumbling across the repository and thusly should reflect a general gist of what it is and how it's used for the laymen. It should NOT go into details about OMG or it's product but about the basics of the knowledge base and the use cases associated with it, along with any main community messages regarding the project. It should answer the basic question of why am I here?

My take on sections are:

• links to the actual site, https://kb.buildomg.org
• an explanation of the purpose of the kb
• background on what caused this project to be started and how we got here.
• laymen manual on how to use the kb
• api access manual
• past roadmap of how it has developed.
• present goals
• future milestones for the project
• other project related thingies (chatbot etc)
• accredit those contributors who have put the effort into helping with the content
• open source licensing information (GPL)

The auto generated qna links fail if there are brackets in the doc title.