User talk:100.12.184.241

Three O'Clock Train
Regardless of whether the sources got things right or wrong, Wikipedia has to privilege what the published sources say over unsourced claims of private personal inside knowledge. I have no reason to doubt that you're acting in good faith, but Wikipedia has had problems in the past with people who changed our content while claiming private personal knowledge that contradicted the published sources, but in fact turned out to have been lying in order to misrepresent or even libel our article topics. If information in our articles turns out to be incorrect, we're happy to fix it if, and only if, the desired correction is properly supported by published sources — but we cannot and do not publish unsourced claims that contradict the published sources, because that has gotten us into trouble.

Our job on here isn't to be the originating publisher of information that contradicts the published sources, or to investigate whether the published sources got stuff wrong — our job is strictly to summarize what other published sources have already said, not to do original journalism ourselves. And yes, that sometimes means our information can be wrong — but even if it is, we still require other published sources, not just unreferenced claims of insider knowledge, before we can change it.

So if you want the information in the article to change, we're happy to change it if you show published sources to support the desired changes. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)