I do a bit of editing of Wikipedia, trained as a mathematician, keen interest in astronomy all my life, and do music software programming particularly to do with microtonal music. So several areas of expertise, in those areas I find it works reasonably well, don't contribute much just a bit from time to time. It works pretty well I find, nothing like the issues you get in politics and the like.
The only issue I have had is similar to the one you found, when you add something that's accurate and it gets deleted.
The thing there that helps I find is to make sure you have lots of references. You can usually turn stuff up quickly with a google in Google Scholar or on-line textbooks or the like depending on the subject. Add a few references to on-line papers to most of your sentences or paragraphs and that shows it's not original research and anyone editing it to change what you are written should go and check up those references first. That helps the casual wiki editors who just delete stuff they don't understand and don't recognise, and lets the experts check things up if they have doubts about what you wrote.
If you look at it from their side, then wikipedia keeps getting stuff added to it all the time that's speculative or just nonsense. Luckily there are as many people going around patrolling it and removing all the nonsense again. So - you want them to do that of course, but you also want to make things easier for them. So adding lots of citations to your article means when they get there it is obviously a contribution by someone who has done his or her research, and it's not original material.
If they are very thorough they might chase up a couple of your citations and make sure they look like genuine original articles.
I did a bit of patrolling of the "proposals for deletion" just a few times to help out, after one of my articles was suggested for deletion - after adding citations then it was a swift discussion and the result was "keep".
So anyway for this patrol, you see a lot of nonsense added to wikipedia every day, but amongst that also you get lots of articles that are fine, but got this "proposal for deletion" added to them mainly because they don't have any citations and the subject is a bit obscure. If you do a google you find the subject is notable and not original research. They have these "proposals for deletion" added to them obviously by a wiki editor who didn't have enough time to chase up references for them which can take a bit of research to find.
So - when you undo an edit like that, add a citation to it, or give some way for them to verify what you say. Or indeed just put a comment in the wiki source code to say "don't delete this if you don't understand" - for instance in the "orders of magnitude" page at wikipedia there is a comment on each one about the "long scale" naming system
<!-- if you don't know what "long scale" means, don't edit this line. It is not a mistake. -->
So you can do stuff like that too if you get the same edit over and over and have to keep reverting, explain in a comment that they see when they edit the wiki code, to say it's not a mistake and that they shouldn't remove the content unless they understand it.