Paywalled Sources: Why Wikipedia Rejects Them and What to Use Instead

When you see a paywalled source, a research article or news story hidden behind a subscription gate like JSTOR, ScienceDirect, or The New York Times paywall. Also known as subscription-only content, it’s something Wikipedia editors actively avoid because no one can check it without paying. That’s the core problem: Wikipedia isn’t just about what’s true—it’s about what anyone can verify. If a source is locked behind a login or payment, it breaks the foundation of open knowledge. Anyone, anywhere, should be able to click a link and confirm the claim. Paywalls make that impossible.

Wikipedia doesn’t hate academic journals or newspapers—it hates secrecy. A reliable source, a publication or database with editorial oversight, fact-checking, and public accessibility needs to be open for inspection. That’s why peer-reviewed papers in open-access journals like PLOS ONE or arXiv (when properly cited) are fine, but the same paper on ScienceDirect isn’t. The content is identical, but one is visible to the public, and the other isn’t. This isn’t about quality—it’s about transparency. Editors also reject paywalled books, corporate white papers, and gated government reports unless they’re available through official archives or libraries with free public access.

What do you use instead? Look for preprints, early versions of academic papers shared before peer review—but wait, those are banned too, because they haven’t been vetted. So what’s left? Free versions of the same research on university websites, official government publications, or citations from books available on Wikisource, a Wikimedia project hosting free, scanned, and proofread public domain texts. Many journalists and academics also post free copies of their work on personal sites or repositories like ResearchGate. If you can’t find a free version, don’t cite it. Instead, find another source that says the same thing and is openly available. This isn’t just policy—it’s how Wikipedia stays trustworthy. You’re not just writing for readers; you’re writing for the next editor who needs to check your work.

The posts below show how this rule plays out in real editing. You’ll see how editors replace locked sources with open ones, how policy debates around paywalls have changed over time, and how tools like citation templates help flag problematic references before they go live. You’ll also find real examples of how newsrooms and researchers accidentally break this rule—and how to fix it. This isn’t about being picky. It’s about keeping Wikipedia open for everyone.