Wikipedia:Truth requires sources

You seem not to know why your edit was undone. You edited an article about which you have personal knowledge of certain facts. While your knowledge might be admissible as testimony in a court of law, Wikipedia has a policy which prevents your personal knowledge from being added to the encyclopedia. The policy is called WP:No original research (NOR), and it states that material to be added to Wikipedia must be sourced from published, reliable sources which have no connection to the article's subject.

When you stop to think about it, how else can a crowd-sourced encyclopedia be considered at all trustworthy if, truly, anyone were free to add anything to Wikipedia, without certain restrictions, like NOR and reliable sources. In that sense, verifiability is more important than "truth" in Wikipedia.

Here is an example of what happens when an editor puts truth in Wikipedia without citing reliable sources: it gets reverted, and I even called it vandalism because I was unaware that Jackie Robinson had a connection to Pasadena. It's not my job find the sources to support another editor's addition to Wikipedia.

I hope that Wikipedia's policy against original research doesn't discourage you from contributing. The idea that Wikipedia could be an actual compendium of the entire sum of human knowledge runs up against the fact that not all humans will contribute accurately, even though some of them will. If you should ever happen to be interviewed in depth by the New York Times on the subject, any of that interview, once published, could be added, paraphrased, to the article. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
 * --User:Quisqualis
 * Based on User talk:2604:6000:9FC0:50:4C5C:7A26:F8D3:3FE7