Wikipedia doesn’t just pull facts from thin air. Every claim on the site needs to be backed by a reliable source. But not all sources are created equal. Think tanks and advocacy groups are frequently cited on Wikipedia - sometimes as the main source for policy positions, economic data, or social trends. The problem? Many of them aren’t neutral. They’re built to push agendas, not report facts. And if you’re editing Wikipedia, using them without caution can turn an encyclopedia into a propaganda tool.
What Are Think Tanks and Advocacy Groups?
Think tanks are organizations that research public policy issues - things like climate change, tax reform, or healthcare. Some, like the Brookings Institution or the RAND Corporation, aim for academic rigor and publish peer-reviewed studies. Others, like the Heritage Foundation or the Center for American Progress, openly align with political ideologies. Advocacy groups, on the other hand, are even more transparent about their goals: they want to change laws, shift public opinion, or mobilize voters. Groups like the NRA, Planned Parenthood, or the American Civil Liberties Union aren’t trying to be objective. They’re trying to win.
Wikipedia’s policy says sources must be “reliable, published, and independent.” That last word - independent - is where things get messy. If a think tank is funded by a single corporation or political party, is it still independent? The answer isn’t always clear. And that’s why editors on Wikipedia argue about these sources every day.
Why Do People Cite Them So Often?
There’s a practical reason think tanks and advocacy groups show up so often on Wikipedia: they produce content that’s easy to find and use. Unlike academic journals that sit behind paywalls, most think tanks publish free reports, infographics, and press releases. They’re updated frequently. They answer current questions - like “How many people are affected by this law?” or “What’s the projected cost of this policy?” - in plain language.
For editors who aren’t researchers, these sources feel like a shortcut. You can copy a statistic from the Cato Institute’s website and paste it into an article about tax policy. But that’s not the same as verifying the data. You’re trusting the source’s framing, not its accuracy.
Wikipedia’s own guidelines warn against this. The Manual of Style says: “Do not use advocacy group sources to describe their own positions as if they are facts.” In other words, you can say “The Heritage Foundation claims X,” but you can’t say “X is true” and cite the Heritage Foundation as proof.
The Bias Problem
Bias isn’t always obvious. A report from the Urban Institute might look neutral because it uses charts, footnotes, and technical language. But if it’s funded by a liberal donor network and only cites liberal studies, it’s still pushing a viewpoint. Similarly, a conservative think tank might use the same tools to present data that supports deregulation - even if the underlying data is cherry-picked.
Here’s a real example: In 2023, a Wikipedia article on minimum wage cited a study from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) to argue that raising the minimum wage reduces poverty. Another editor added a counterpoint from the Cato Institute, which claimed the same policy increases unemployment. Both studies were peer-reviewed. Both were published. But EPI is funded by labor unions and progressive foundations. Cato is funded by libertarian donors and corporate interests. Neither is neutral. Wikipedia’s solution? Present both sides - but only if you label them correctly.
The rule is simple: Attribution over assertion. Don’t say “Studies show X.” Say “The EPI argues X, while Cato contends Y.” That way, readers know who’s saying what - and why.
How Wikipedia Handles These Sources
Wikipedia editors don’t ban think tanks outright. Instead, they use a system of checks:
- Source transparency: Editors must disclose funding sources if they’re relevant to bias. A report from the American Enterprise Institute is fine - if you mention it’s funded by corporate donors.
- Corroboration: One think tank’s claim isn’t enough. If you’re citing the Brookings Institution on climate policy, you should also find a statement from the IPCC, a university study, or a government agency.
- Contextual framing: You can’t say “The Koch network says climate change is a hoax.” You can say, “The Koch network, which has donated millions to climate denial groups, disputes the scientific consensus on climate change.” The difference? One is an assertion. The other is a description of a position.
These aren’t just suggestions - they’re enforced. Wikipedia has a whole community of editors who patrol articles for biased sourcing. If you try to cite the Southern Poverty Law Center as proof that a group is a hate group - without also citing the group’s own public statements or court records - your edit will be reverted.
When It’s Okay to Use Them
There are times when think tanks and advocacy groups are not just acceptable - they’re necessary.
- When describing their own views: If you’re writing about the NRA’s stance on gun control, you can cite the NRA’s website. That’s not bias - that’s reporting.
- When they’re the primary source of data: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is technically a government agency, but it operates like a think tank. Its projections on federal spending are cited everywhere because they’re the only authoritative numbers available.
- When they’re widely recognized as credible: Organizations like the Brookings Institution, RAND, or the Pew Research Center have decades of peer-reviewed work and funding from multiple sides. They’re treated as neutral in practice - even if they aren’t perfectly objective.
The key is knowing the difference between reporting a position and endorsing it. Wikipedia doesn’t care if you think the Heritage Foundation is wrong. It cares if you’re presenting their claims as facts without context.
What Editors Should Do
If you’re editing Wikipedia and you want to cite a think tank or advocacy group, ask yourself these questions:
- Is this source making a claim - or describing a claim?
- Who funds this organization? Does that funding influence their conclusions?
- Can I find another source that confirms this data?
- Am I using this to prove something is true - or to show what someone believes?
If the answer to #4 is “to prove something is true,” you’re breaking the rules. If it’s “to show what someone believes,” you’re doing it right.
Always add context. Instead of:
“Unemployment fell by 2% after the policy was enacted.” (Cited to the Manhattan Institute)
Write:
“The Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank funded by corporate donors, reported that unemployment fell by 2% after the policy was enacted. Other analyses, including those from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, found no significant change.”
That’s not clutter. That’s honesty.
The Bigger Picture
Wikipedia’s strength isn’t that it’s perfect. It’s that it has rules - and a community that enforces them. Think tanks and advocacy groups aren’t evil. They’re part of the public conversation. But Wikipedia isn’t a soapbox. It’s a reference library. And libraries don’t let one voice dominate the shelves.
If you want to use these sources, do it the right way: label them, contextualize them, and never let them speak for reality. The goal isn’t to silence them. It’s to make sure readers know who’s talking - and why.
