Wikipedia's policy on original content is focused on the concept of "Original Research." There's a whole load of guidelines and principles that govern contributions to Wikipedia - they're outlined in a series of articles on Wikipedia itself, unsurprisingly. The one I think is being referred to here is the "no original research" principle, that states that every assertion in an article must be backed up by a reliable secondary source (i.e. facts must have been published somewhere else first, and be referenceable as such). Much of the Original Research policy is aimed towards limiting the challenges - especially in potentially contentious articles - of preventing bias within articles: the much-vaunted Neutral Point of View.
Editors of Wikipedia (it's free and easy to become one - there are enough knowledgeable and sufficiently pedantic people on this forum that I encourage you all to sign up for an account!) end up talking to each other in so much jargon, usually an acronym or abbreviation for one of these guidelines or principles - so, for example, a comment on a "talk" page for an article may say "hold up, that looks like [WP:OR] - what's your [WP:RS] for that assertion? If you can't provide one I may have to revert your edit as it sounds a bit [WP:NPOV] to me..."
Aside from anything else, editing Wikipedia is great fun. I got into it in part because I wanted to learn about how to write a good Wikipedia article, as it had been suggested to me that I should write one about my dad - he just about met the "notoriety" requirements, so I thought it would be a good 21st century way of commemorating his life.
In case anyone's interested, and for those of you particularly from the LogMog Centre who may remember him, that article is
here - sadly I couldn't work out how to include a reference to Morgan in the article, as I couldn't think of a reliable secondary source. But thinking about it now, I'm pretty sure he had a letter published in Miscellany many years ago, so maybe there's hope for an additional edit if I ever find a reference to that!
The guidelines I refer to, incidentally, are searchable by anybody, not just those with editor accounts. Some examples:
reliable sourcesoriginal researchneutral point of viewI, too, make regular modest financial contributions to Wikipedia and to this forum.
