Wikipedia isn’t a place for opinions. It’s built on facts, evidence, and verifiable reporting. That’s why opinion columns - whether from newspapers, magazines, or online platforms - are generally not acceptable as sources for Wikipedia articles. You might see a well-known columnist making a bold claim, and it feels convincing. But that’s not enough. Wikipedia’s standards are stricter than most people realize.
What Wikipedia Actually Needs
Wikipedia requires sources that report on events, data, or established facts - not interpretations. A report on a government policy change, a peer-reviewed study, or official statistics are all solid sources. An opinion column, even if written by a Pulitzer Prize winner, is not. Why? Because it’s not about what happened. It’s about what someone thinks happened.
Think of it this way: if you’re writing about climate change, you need data from NASA or the IPCC. You don’t need a columnist saying, “I think we’re ignoring the real crisis.” That’s not evidence. It’s a viewpoint. Wikipedia doesn’t take sides. It records what reliable sources have documented - not what commentators believe.
Why Opinion Columns Fail the Test
Opinion columns are inherently subjective. They’re designed to persuade, not inform. Even the most respected columnists - like those at The New York Times or The Washington Post - write with a clear point of view. Their job is to make you feel something, think differently, or react. That’s journalism’s editorial side. Wikipedia’s job is to be neutral.
Here’s a real example: In 2023, an editor tried to cite a Wall Street Journal op-ed claiming that “remote work is destroying urban economies.” The edit was rejected. Why? Because the op-ed offered no data, no studies, and no citations to support the claim. It was an assertion. Wikipedia requires the claim to be backed by something measurable - like employment statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics or economic impact reports from universities.
Even if the columnist is an expert, their opinion doesn’t count as evidence. A medical doctor writing that “vaccines are unsafe” in a Forbes opinion piece doesn’t make that true. Wikipedia needs peer-reviewed journals, health agencies, or clinical trial data - not personal beliefs, no matter how qualified the author is.
The Difference Between Reporting and Commentary
Not all newspaper content is equal. A front-page article on a Supreme Court ruling is a reliable source. A column analyzing what the ruling means for future legislation? Not so much. The difference is subtle but critical.
- Reporting: “The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the state on June 15, 2023.” That’s factual. Verifiable. Citable.
- Commentary: “This ruling is a dangerous step toward dismantling civil liberties.” That’s an opinion. It’s not something Wikipedia can use as proof.
Wikipedia editors can and do use reporting from major news outlets - The Associated Press, BBC, Reuters, and NPR - because they follow journalistic standards for verification. But once a piece moves into the opinion section, it loses its reliability for Wikipedia purposes.
What Happens When People Use Opinion Columns Anyway?
It’s common to see opinion columns cited in early drafts of Wikipedia articles. New editors often think, “If this person is famous, their opinion must count.” But experienced editors know better. When someone cites an op-ed as evidence, it usually gets flagged for deletion.
Wikipedia has a formal policy called Verifiability. It says: “Material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable source.” Opinions aren’t attributed - they’re asserted. And they’re not verifiable. You can’t go back and check if a columnist’s opinion was “true.” You can check if a court decision happened. You can check if a study was published. You can’t check if someone felt something.
There’s also the risk of bias. Opinion columns often reflect the political or ideological leanings of their publication. Relying on them can lead to skewed articles. Wikipedia’s goal is to present a neutral point of view - not amplify one side of a debate.
What Can You Use Instead?
If you’re trying to support a claim about a controversial topic - say, gun control or AI regulation - here’s what works:
- Government reports (e.g., CDC, U.S. Census Bureau, Congressional Research Service)
- Peer-reviewed journals (e.g., The Lancet, Nature, Science)
- Books from academic publishers (e.g., Oxford University Press, MIT Press)
- Official statements from recognized institutions (e.g., WHO, UNESCO, IEEE)
- Major news outlets’ reporting - but only if it’s factual reporting, not commentary
For example, if you want to say “AI adoption has increased rapidly in healthcare,” cite a 2025 report from the Journal of Medical Internet Research that shows a 47% rise in AI-assisted diagnostics between 2020 and 2024. Not a Forbes article titled “Why AI Will Replace Doctors.”
Exceptions? Rare - and Specific
There are a few narrow cases where opinion columns might be used - but only as secondary sources. For instance, if you’re writing about the role of opinion journalism itself - like how columnists influence public discourse - then citing an op-ed makes sense. But even then, it’s not to prove a fact. It’s to show how people are talking.
Another exception: if a columnist is a central figure in a story - say, a columnist who was arrested for inciting violence - then their columns might be cited to show their public statements. But again, it’s not for the opinions they expressed. It’s for the documented actions or words.
Wikipedia’s guidelines are clear: “Opinion columns are not reliable sources for factual claims.” That’s not a suggestion. It’s a rule.
How to Spot a Bad Source
Here’s a quick way to check if a source works for Wikipedia:
- Is it reporting an event, data, or fact?
- Can you verify it independently?
- Does it cite its own sources?
- Is it written in a neutral tone?
- Is it from a publication known for fact-checking?
If the answer to any of these is no - especially #1 or #2 - then it’s probably not acceptable. Opinion columns almost always fail #1 and #4. They’re not neutral. They’re not reporting. They’re arguing.
Why This Matters
Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world. Millions of students, researchers, and casual readers rely on it for accurate information. If opinion columns were allowed as sources, the encyclopedia would become a collection of editorial biases - not a reference tool.
Think about it: if you’re writing a paper on U.S. foreign policy and you cite a Politico op-ed that says “The U.S. should withdraw from NATO,” you’re not citing evidence. You’re citing a political position. Wikipedia prevents that. It keeps the information clean, factual, and trustworthy.
It’s not about silencing voices. It’s about building a reliable archive. And that requires discipline. Not every loud voice deserves a place in history’s record. Only the verified ones do.
Can I use an opinion column if the author is a Nobel Prize winner?
No. Even Nobel laureates write opinions. Their expertise doesn’t make their personal views into factual evidence. Wikipedia needs verifiable data - not prestige. A Nobel-winning economist’s opinion on tax policy is still just an opinion. You need government data or peer-reviewed economic models to support claims.
What if the opinion column cites studies and data?
If the column includes data from reliable sources, you can cite those original sources directly - not the column. For example, if a columnist says, “A 2024 study in The Lancet found X,” then cite The Lancet. The column adds no value. It’s just a middleman. Wikipedia prefers direct sources to avoid distortion or misinterpretation.
Are all opinion columns banned on Wikipedia?
Yes - for factual claims. Opinion columns can be used only when the topic is about opinion journalism itself - for example, when analyzing how columnists shaped public debate. But even then, they’re not used to prove facts. They’re used as examples of public discourse. The rule is strict: no opinion = no evidence.
Can I use opinion columns from non-U.S. publications?
The same rule applies globally. Whether it’s a column in The Guardian, Le Monde, or Asahi Shimbun, it’s still an opinion. Wikipedia’s standards don’t change by country. What matters is whether the source reports facts or expresses views. Non-U.S. opinion columns are just as unreliable for factual claims.
What if no other sources are available?
If there are no reliable sources at all, the claim cannot be included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn’t invent facts to fill gaps. It’s better to leave a topic out than to include unverified claims. This is why some articles are stubs - they’re incomplete because reliable sources don’t exist yet. That’s a feature, not a flaw.
