I think this question is about a balance between two competing issues:
We don't want people using the site to subtly push their political/commercial agendas in a way that evades proper scrutiny.
We don't want people using the site to subtly push their political/commercial agendas in a way that evades proper scrutiny, but in a different way.
If I use a troll's hypothetical love of tinned beans as a stand-in for whatever political position they hold:
We might well be wary if someone asks:
Did Gandhi really say that tinned beans were the most nutritious, delicious and inexpensive food?
that they don't care at all whether Gandhi really said it - they just want to sneakily push their opinion of tinned beans.
In such a situation, it is understandable that people who don't share that view of tinned beans might want to ignore the "did they say it?" part and focus solely on debunking what was said.
But if we turn that around and ask about a real-life controversy
Did the US president really endorse a brand of tinned beans?
with genuine doubt about whether the images were photoshopped, we would be very wary of anyone who posted an answer that explained why tinned beans were nutritious, delicious and inexpensive. That wouldn't answer the question.
More problematically, these answers about tinned beans would not be in a question about the nutrition of tinned beans, and would likely not attract the attention of our users who have expertise in the area of bean nutrition, so the answers would likely not get the best peer-review.
My position is that we should be very clear about whether a question is about authenticity of a quote and the actual claim. We shouldn't let people ask both in the same question. We shouldn't let people answer one in a question about the other.
With one proviso: We have long permitted that a little bit of context, and even clearly marked conjecture, might be added to an answer that already addresses the question.
Yes, Gandhi said tinned beans were nutritious on page 72 of his autobiography.
However, this was a controversial claim, and undermined by this recent study.
I think this sentence might have been a misunderstood metaphor.
[Disclaimer: I have railed in the past about how dull most quote questions are to me.]