If you doubt the existing narrative, the burden is on you.
e.g. I read on Wikipedia that the Pryce baronets went extinct with the seventh baronet. Is that true?
First, thank you for having done at least some preliminary research. I appreciate that you've made an effort. That said, unless you have a reason to doubt the fact in question, why are you asking? Do you have a reason to believe that there was an eighth Pryce baronet? Are you confused about how a baronetage (or any other title) go extinct? Do you doubt the existence of the Pryce baronetage at all?
Some of those questions are valid. But if your question is just "I read X, is it true?"
then you're wasting your own time, let alone mine. There are a huge number of assertions on wikipedia; we could fill up the H:SE question queue with questions about whether any given assertion is true. H:SE would wind up being a copy of Wikipedia. If your only question is whether an arbitrary assertion on wikipedia is true, then I'm going to downvote your question. If I'm having a bad day, I'm going to downvote your question, then answer it by citing the wikipedia page.
Did Yuri Gagarin really hear a ticking sound during his journey into outer space?
I was challenged on this one recently on the grounds that a movie put words into the mouth of a real man; (leaving aside the problem that the question does not include a quote) By this principle, we can question any quote in any movie. 1776 has Thomas Jefferson writing "When in the course of human events..." is that true? Lincoln has Abe Lincoln saying "hello"... is that true? Movie X depicts John F Kennedy as a featherless biped, is that true? Book Y says that Robbert Goddard had five fingers on each hand, is that true? Unless you provide some justification, some reason, then all of these are equally absurd. Gagarin was in a tiny cockpit crammed full of electromechanical equipment and he heard a sound typical of electromechanical equipment. Where is the surprise? He was in a relatively tiny capsule exposed to extreme temperature and pressure fluctations - my house make a ticking nose when the wind blows. I'd be more surprised if he didn't hear a ticking sound; if OP had asked, "Why didn't Gagarin hear any strange noises during his space flight?" I would have started work on that question, because that would be surprising. (I'd frankly doubt it and ask for a citation, because citing every non-trivial assertion is simple courtesy). Is there a reason why hearing this sound is surprising? I have no doubt that there is - but OP hasn't told us that. If you doubt the existing narrative, you're obliged to explain why you doubt it. Asking a question here is a request for a group of strangers to exert effort on your behalf. Simple respect suggests that if it isn't obvious, that you explain why you find the existing narrative unsubstantial.
How to fix the problem
If you have a reference to a ninth baronet Pryce and you need to reconcile the statement in Wikipedia with evidence you have elsewhere then include in the question references to both bits of evidence (the Wikipedia page and whatever other evidence you have).
If you don't understand how a baronetage can go extinct, then your question isn't "is that true?", your real question is "how does a baronetage go extinct?" or "How does inheritance of a baronet work?" (that's actually a rather good question).
If Gagarin spent hours checking the ticking noise against each of the instruments in his spacecraft and measured it to ensure that it was regular and did tests to exclude other possibilities, then mention that.
If you doubt the existence of the Pryce baronetage because all English titles are the invention of our reptilian overlords, then I need to know that so I can cast a close vote rather than a downvote.
If you don't understand what a baronetage is, then I suggest you do a couple of google searches before you ask, and incorporate that research into your question.
If the assertion in Wikipedia sounds implausible to you, then I'd do a bit more research and make your doubt explicit.
"Wikipedia says that George W. Bush and Sylvester Stallone are the same person; after all they were born on the same day, and they are both white males, given all that evidence, how can you tell the difference between them? I've done some research and I cannot find any photographs that contains both of them, but the underlying claim sounds a bit suspicious to me."
The nice thing about phrasing the question that way is that we can answer it if we can find a single photograph showing both of them, or some other irrefutable evidence that they are different people.
Questions that involve more research are less likely to get downvotes than questions that involve little or no research.
Please confirm this fragile assertion - This is a great counterexample; OP's real question is to confirm or deny a fragile (single source) hypothesis. I believe this is part & parcel of the practice of history. We have to be careful not to phrase it as a source request, but rather as a request to support or rebut a hypothesis. (I'm open to discussion/commentary on this point).