How to responsibly name individuals in EpsteinWiki pages
EpsteinWiki investigates powerful networks, institutions, and individuals. Because of that, contributors must follow strict, defensible, evidence-based rules when naming public figures. These rules protect survivors, contributors, and the project’s long-term credibility.
The goal is simple:
Document the truth without causing avoidable harm or spreading unverified claims.
Who Counts as a Public Figure?
For our purposes, a public figure is:
• Elected officials
• Political candidates
• High-ranking government staff
• CEOs, founders, major investors
• Celebrities, public personalities, media figures
• Individuals who have already been publicly named in verified reporting or court documents related to Epstein
Private individuals with no public footprint are not public figures and must be named only under strict conditions (explained later).
When You Can Name a Public Figure
You may name a public figure only when one of the following is true:
1. They appear in a verified legal document
Examples:
• Indictments
• Court filings
• Depositions
• Exhibits
• Discovery materials released legally
• Prosecutorial memos or plea agreements
Your summary must clearly state the source.
2. They appear in reputable, fact-checked reporting
Allowed sources include:
• Major newspapers (NYT, WaPo, Guardian, Miami Herald, etc.)
• Reputable investigative outlets with editorial oversight
• Court transcripts or official press briefings
Anonymous blogs or unverifiable “dumps” do not qualify.
3. They have publicly acknowledged their connection
Examples:
• Statements to press
• Public comments
• Interviews
• Legal filings by their own lawyers
4. They were part of official, documented roles
Examples:
• Pilots
• Bank executives managing Epstein accounts
• Lawyers or accountants of record
• Board members of involved institutions
• Employees listed in organizational documents
When You Cannot Name a Public Figure
You may NOT name someone if:
• They appear only in rumors, anonymous posts, or undocumented claims
• They are mentioned in unverifiable “leaks” with unclear origins
• They are referenced only in speculative social media threads
• Their name appears in a document that seems manipulated or altered
• They appear in an unsourced list or image without context
• Their name is tied to an accusation without explicit supporting evidence
If verification cannot be established, the page must refrain from naming the individual.
Use phrasing like:
“An unnamed public official,”
or
“A high-ranking executive (identity not verified).”
Special Rules for Naming Private Individuals
Private individuals (non-celebrities, non-public officials) require much higher evidence thresholds.
You may name a private individual ONLY when:
• They are explicitly named in public court documents
AND
• Their role is part of a verified filing, indictment, or plea agreement
You may NOT name a private individual when:
• The only source is a leaked PDF
• Their inclusion could expose a minor
• Their identity is guessed based on context clues
• They appear only in private emails, contact lists, or social circles without evidence of illegal conduct
• Their name appears in flight logs without additional context
• The document identifying them has uncertain authenticity
When in doubt: redact and flag.
How to Phrase Accurately and Safely
Allowed:
• “According to the 2019 deposition of ___…”
• “This document lists ___ as present at…”
• “Public reporting from [source] states that ___…”
Not allowed:
• “This proves ___ was involved.”
• “It’s obvious ___ was part of it.”
• “Many believe ___ participated.”
We never imply guilt without evidence.
Handling Ambiguous or Contradictory Mentions
If:
• A name appears in one source but is disputed in another
• A name is linked to Epstein socially but not legally
• A name appears in flight logs but nowhere else
• A name appears in a partially redacted document
Then contributors must:
- Present the facts neutrally
- Avoid interpretation
- Avoid implying involvement
- Add context such as:
“Presence does not indicate criminal activity.”
This protects against defamation and sensationalism.
Contributor Checklist Before Naming Anyone
Ask yourself:
• Is the person a public figure?
• Do I have verified documents or reputable reporting?
• Is the accusation backed by evidence?
• Am I avoiding speculation?
• Am I avoiding guilt-by-association language?
• Am I protecting minors and survivors?
• Am I citing my source clearly?
• Is the phrasing factual and neutral?
If any answer is no → do not publish. Flag for review.
When to Flag for Moderators
Always flag if:
• You think a document might be manipulated
• You’re unsure if someone qualifies as a public figure
• You’re uncertain about the reliability of a source
• The naming even might cause harm to an innocent or survivor
• The material contains names tied to minors
• You see speculation or leaps in logic
Moderators will handle the verification and redaction.
Why These Rules Matter
People with enormous power used their positions to shield Epstein for decades.
Documenting truth is essential — but doing it responsibly is the only way to ensure:
• Survivor safety
• Legal soundness
• Public trust
• Long-term stability of the project
• Prevention of harm to innocent parties
This is how we build a permanent, unshakeable record.