Contributor Instructions

UpdatedSeptember 3, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

How to research, write, source, edit, and submit trustworthy work to EpsteinWiki

EpsteinWiki is built by people willing to do the work that viral posts skip. Contributors locate the original record, read the surrounding pages, identify who created it, follow the court docket, verify the name, document the denial, preserve the source, and explain what the evidence does not prove.

That work matters because the Epstein archive contains real evidence mixed with allegations, duplicates, OCR errors, partial productions, political manipulation, gossip, survivor testimony, legal argument, and records whose significance cannot be understood from one screenshot.

You do not need to arrive as an expert. You do need to follow the evidence, protect survivors, accept editorial review, and correct mistakes when better information appears.

These instructions govern new pages, updates to existing pages, document summaries, timelines, evidence entries, person profiles, organization pages, court case pages, and research submitted for editorial review.

The contributor rule: Preserve every supported fact, label every unresolved claim, link the original evidence, and never make the conclusion stronger than the record.

Snapshot

Every EpsteinWiki contributor must:

Use lawful public evidence.
Read the EpsteinWiki Investigative Standards.
Follow the Editorial Standards.
Read How to Read an Epstein Document before summarizing evidence.
Protect survivors, minors, witnesses, and uninvolved private people.
Link EFTA evidence directly to Epstein Data.
Cite exact EFTA numbers, court dockets, exhibits, pages, dates, and source URLs.
Separate verified facts, allegations, testimony, legal arguments, findings, convictions, denials, and open questions.
Preserve existing sourced information when updating a page unless evidence shows it is inaccurate, duplicative, irrelevant, or unsafe to publish.
Search for contradictory evidence and meaningful denials.
Use an approved page template.
Add internal links, related pages, sources, tags, and SEO fields.
Preview and proofread before submitting.
Welcome corrections supported by evidence.

Contributors who cannot meet these standards should submit a lead rather than publish a conclusion.

Who can contribute

EpsteinWiki welcomes careful researchers, archivists, librarians, attorneys, journalists, data analysts, historians, students, technologists, survivors, advocates, and members of the public.

Expertise is useful, but status does not replace evidence. A professional title does not make an unsupported claim publishable. A new contributor who provides a complete source trail may produce stronger work than an experienced researcher relying on memory or reputation.

Contributors may help without writing a full article. Valuable tasks include:

Finding broken links.
Locating missing EFTA numbers.
Checking quotations against page images.
Adding document page numbers.
Identifying duplicates.
Transcribing readable records.
Building sourced timelines.
Summarizing court dockets.
Researching public corporate and property records.
Finding archived versions of deleted public pages.
Checking whether allegations were denied, withdrawn, dismissed, corroborated, or adjudicated.
Adding internal links between related pages.
Flagging exposed private information.
Submitting documented corrections.

Start with work narrow enough to finish. One correctly cited record is more valuable than a sprawling theory nobody can reproduce.

To learn about participation and access, visit For Contributors, Become an Epstein Sleuth, and Content Contributor Levels and Roles.

Read these pages before your first edit

Every contributor should understand the following rules before creating or changing content:

Getting Started with EpsteinWiki explains how readers and researchers move through the archive.
EpsteinWiki Investigative Standards establishes the evidence, verification, safety, and publication rules.
Editorial Standards explains classifications, sourcing, neutral language, survivor respect, corrections, and prohibited conduct.
How to Read an Epstein Document teaches contributors how to interpret court filings, EFTA records, emails, testimony, calendars, financial records, flight logs, and multimedia.
Evidence Handling 101 explains preservation and source tracking.
Handling Contradictory Evidence explains how to present conflicting records without hiding inconvenient facts.
Working With Survivor Testimony explains how to summarize testimony without exploitation or unnecessary graphic detail.
Corrections Policy explains how errors, disputes, clarifications, and removal concerns are handled.

These are publication standards, not optional reading suggestions.

Choose the correct contribution type

Before writing, decide what the page is supposed to accomplish.

Person page

Use a person page for an individual whose documented role or appearance is relevant to the archive. The page must explain who the person is, why they appear, what evidence connects them, and what the evidence does not establish.

Do not create a page solely because a name resembles a public figure’s name or appears once without identifiable context. Use the Person Page Template.

Organization page

Use an organization page for a company, bank, university, charity, foundation, government body, law firm, trust, property entity, modeling business, or other institution connected through evidence.

The page should distinguish the institution from individual employees and explain ownership, leadership, role, dates, transactions, litigation, and institutional response. Use the Organization Page Template.

Court case page

Use a case page for criminal charges, civil lawsuits, appeals, settlements, bankruptcy matters, probate proceedings, and other litigation relevant to the archive.

Record the complete caption, court, jurisdiction, docket number, parties, filing date, claims or charges, procedural history, significant filings, rulings, final status, and direct docket links. Use the Case Page Template.

Document page

Use a document page for a specific primary record such as an agreement, memorandum, report, deposition, court filing, government release, letter, transcript, or email collection.

Identify the creator, source, date, file type, production number, legal context, key contents, evidentiary limits, and related pages. Use the Document Page Template.

Evidence page

Use an evidence page for a discrete record or evidence set such as an email, photograph, flight log, ledger, receipt, phone record, financial transfer, calendar entry, property file, or evidence inventory.

Explain provenance, authenticity, context, relevant content, corroboration, and limits. Use the Evidence Page Template.

Timeline page

Use a timeline when chronological order materially helps readers understand events, contradictions, institutional responses, litigation, travel, payments, or communications.

Every entry needs a source. Chronological proximity does not prove causation. Use the Timeline Page Template.

Survivor testimony page

Use the survivor testimony structure only for lawfully public testimony, declarations, depositions, interviews, or statements. Follow the survivor’s chosen public name and never expose a person known only by a protected pseudonym.

Survivor pages require heightened review and trauma informed language. Do not create one simply to repeat graphic details.

Search before creating a new page

Duplicate pages split evidence, confuse readers, and create inconsistent conclusions.

Before creating a page, search:

The EpsteinWiki Knowledge Base.
The Index Directory.
Alternate spellings.
Middle names and initials.
Nicknames and aliases.
Company names and former company names.
Court case captions and docket numbers.
EFTA identifiers.
Property addresses and entity names.

If a relevant page exists, update it rather than creating a competing page. If two pages appear to cover the same subject, alert an editor before merging or deleting anything.

Do not assume that two people are the same because they share a name. Compare occupation, employer, geography, age, address, email domain, telephone number, known associates, and the date of the record.

Start with a research question

An article needs a defined purpose. “Everything about this person” is not a manageable research question.

Useful questions include:

When does this person first appear in the documented record?
What role did this company play in a specific transaction?
What did the court decide, and what remained unresolved?
Does a calendar entry have confirming communications?
Who owned an entity when it received a payment?
Was an allegation corroborated, denied, dismissed, or adjudicated?
What changed between the first and final version of a document?

Write the question at the top of your research notes. Collect evidence that supports and challenges the possible answer.

Do not begin with a verdict and search only for material that confirms it.

Use lawful public evidence only

Acceptable research sources include:

Public court filings and dockets.
Government releases.
FOIA and public records responses.
Congressional records and committee releases.
Lawfully accessible corporate, charity, property, and financial records.
Archived public websites.
Public interviews and testimony.
Reputable investigative journalism.
Public multimedia with verifiable provenance.
Records supplied with lawful authorization or consent.

Contributors must not:

Hack accounts or systems.
Use stolen credentials.
Bypass access controls.
Impersonate another person.
Enter restricted databases without authorization.
Ask another person to obtain records unlawfully.
Purchase illegal material.
Upload private, sealed, or restricted evidence to an AI service.
Search for, download, save, share, or attempt to authenticate suspected child sexual abuse material.

A record described online as a “leak” requires editorial review before anyone downloads, redistributes, cites, or publishes it. Public interest does not erase legal and ethical obligations.

If illegal material appears unexpectedly, stop reviewing it. Report it through the relevant platform or the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children CyberTipline.

Build a source record before you write

For every important document, record:

Exact title or description.
Creator, author, sender, filing party, or agency.
Date created.
Date filed, received, or released.
Source archive.
Direct source URL.
Complete EFTA, docket, exhibit, Bates, or file identifier.
Relevant page numbers.
File type and size.
Access date.
SHA 256 hash when practical.
Related records.
Privacy or survivor concerns.

Preserve the original downloaded file. Create a separate working copy for OCR, annotations, highlights, image extraction, or conversion.

A contributor should be able to answer, “Where did this come from?” without reconstructing the research weeks later.

Prioritize primary sources

Use the earliest lawful source that directly supports the claim.

Primary sources may include:

Court filings.
Orders and judgments.
Deposition transcripts.
Government records.
Official corporate filings.
Financial records.
Contemporaneous emails and letters.
Photographs and recordings with verified provenance.
First person public testimony.

Secondary reporting provides context, identifies leads, and may contain original interviews. It should not replace an available primary document.

Trace claims backward. A social media post may cite a news story. The news story may cite a complaint. The complaint may quote an email. The email is the underlying evidence for what the sender wrote, while the complaint explains how a party used it.

Several websites repeating the same article are not independent corroboration. A screenshot and the document it crops are one source.

EFTA evidence must link to Epstein Data

When an EFTA record appears in an article, include the complete identifier and a direct link to the corresponding Epstein Data document page whenever available.

Epstein Data document links follow this format:

https://epstein-data.com/EFTA########

Replace the number signs with the complete eight digit identifier.

Also include:

The relevant page.
A brief description of the record.
The date of the underlying document when known.
The speaker or creator.
The evidentiary status.

Do not cite only the Epstein Data AI summary, search result, entity report, or OCR text. Open the visible source record. Confirm the quotation, name, amount, date, and page.

The DOJ Epstein Library is the official government release source. The DOJ search page warns that handwriting and unusual formatting can create unreliable results. Epstein Data makes the production far easier to search, but the source image remains the evidence.

Cite court cases completely

A court citation should include:

Full case caption.
Court.
Docket number.
Docket entry number when available.
Filing title.
Filing date.
Relevant page.
Direct PDF or docket link.

Use official court records when available. CourtListener is a useful public source for dockets, filings, and opinions.

Identify the document type accurately:

A complaint contains allegations.
An answer contains admissions, denials, and defenses.
A motion asks the court to act.
A brief argues a party’s position.
An exhibit is material submitted for a legal purpose.
A deposition preserves sworn testimony.
An order records what the judge decided.
A verdict records the fact finder’s decision.
A judgment records the formal disposition.
A settlement records the parties’ agreement.

Always look for the order resolving a motion. Check whether an order was amended, stayed, vacated, reconsidered, or reversed. Do not describe a party’s allegation as the court’s finding.

Classify every important statement

Before publication, assign each important statement to the correct category.

Verified fact

A fact directly established by reliable evidence, such as a court order, official record, authenticated communication, or multiple independent sources.

Allegation

A claim of wrongdoing made in a complaint, interview, public statement, testimony, or other source that has not been established as fact.

Sworn testimony

A statement made under oath or penalty of perjury. It is evidence, but not automatically a judicial finding.

Legal argument

A position advanced by a party or lawyer in a motion, brief, hearing, or appeal. It is not the court’s conclusion.

Judicial or official finding

A conclusion expressly reached by a judge, jury, authorized agency, or other official body within its authority.

Criminal charge

A formal accusation by prosecutors. A charge is not a conviction.

Conviction or guilty plea

Criminal responsibility established through a verdict or plea.

Denial or contrary account

A response disputing the allegation or offering a materially different account. Meaningful denials and contradictory evidence belong in the article.

Investigative lead

A pattern, reference, relationship, or open question requiring additional research.

Unverified material

A rumor, screenshot, anonymous claim, identity match, or document whose authenticity or meaning has not been established.

Labels should appear near the claim. Do not hide uncertainty in a distant disclaimer.

No guilt by association

Appearing in an Epstein related record does not automatically establish knowledge, participation, or criminal conduct.

A person may appear as a survivor, witness, employee, lawyer, investigator, journalist, service provider, family member, event guest, message recipient, public official, or incidental contact.

Use record specific language:

“The contact book contains the person’s contact information.”
“The calendar records a proposed meeting.”
“The flight log lists the person as a passenger.”
“The email names the person as a proposed recipient.”
“The complaint alleged…”
“The witness testified…”
“The court found…”

Do not write:

“The person was involved” when the record shows only a mention.
“The person visited the island” when the flight ended elsewhere.
“The person was a client” based on a contact book, flight log, or calendar.
“The FBI confirmed” when the file merely preserves a tip.
“The DOJ proved” because DOJ released the document.

Every profile must explain the documented connection and its limits.

Preserve existing sourced material when updating pages

An update is not permission to erase the historical record.

Before editing an existing page:

Read the entire page.
Open its important sources.
Identify what is supported, unsupported, outdated, duplicated, or incomplete.
Preserve supported details even if you reorganize or rewrite the article.
Add new evidence in the appropriate chronological and evidentiary context.
Update denials, case outcomes, related pages, and sources.
Note significant corrections or changes when appropriate.

Remove or substantially alter existing information only when:

The source does not support it.
Better evidence disproves it.
It duplicates material without adding value.
It exposes private or legally sensitive information.
It is irrelevant to the page.
An editor directs the change after review.

If you are uncertain, flag the passage and ask for review. Do not quietly delete a sourced fact because it complicates the story.

Required EpsteinWiki article structure

Use the approved template for the page type. A complete article will generally contain:

Clear H1 title. Use the full person, organization, case, event, or document name.
Compelling introduction. Explain why the page matters without sensationalism.
Snapshot. Give readers the essential facts and evidentiary status.
Overview or background. Establish identity, chronology, and relevant context.
Documented connection. Explain why the subject belongs in EpsteinWiki.
Evidence appearances. Organize primary records with exact identifiers and direct links.
Court cases or official proceedings. Link complete dockets and explain outcomes.
Allegations, testimony, findings, and denials. Keep the categories distinct.
What the evidence proves and does not prove. State the limits directly.
Related people, organizations, documents, cases, and timelines. Add internal links.
Source list. Include the primary evidence and high quality contextual sources.
Editorial note. Add legal, privacy, archival, or uncertainty notes when needed.
SEO fields. Provide a suggested slug, meta title, meta description, focus keyphrase, and relevant tags when the page requires them.

Use H2 headings for major sections and H3 headings for subsections. Place a single separator line between major H2 sections. Keep paragraphs readable. Use tables only when they make chronology, evidence, cases, payments, or competing claims easier to understand.

Never sacrifice facts to make the article shorter. Improve pacing, organization, and narrative flow while preserving supported detail.

Write a compelling story without turning evidence into entertainment

EpsteinWiki articles should be worth reading. A complete archive does not need to sound like a filing cabinet.

Strong openings identify the central conflict. They may show how a record changed the public understanding, how an institution failed, how separate transactions connect, or how survivors kept speaking while powerful systems delayed accountability.

Compelling writing still requires restraint:

Build tension from documented chronology.
Let primary records carry the weight.
Explain why a legal or financial detail matters.
Connect evidence across time without inventing causation.
Use specific verbs and concrete facts.
Place denials and uncertainty where readers encounter the allegation.
Avoid melodrama, insults, taunts, and clickbait labels.
Never use survivor suffering as spectacle.

The goal is not to drain the story of emotion. The goal is to make the truth compelling enough that it does not need exaggeration.

Use precise attribution language

Good attribution tells readers who made the claim and what kind of record contains it.

Use language such as:

“The email states…”
“The calendar records…”
“The flight log lists…”
“The witness testified…”
“The complaint alleged…”
“Prosecutors charged…”
“The defendant denied…”
“The court found…”
“The jury convicted…”
“The parties settled…”
“The available records do not establish…”
“EpsteinWiki has not located independent corroboration…”
“The identity remains uncertain…”

Avoid passive constructions that hide the speaker. “It was revealed” is weaker than “The deposition states” or “The court order found.”

Avoid “the files prove” when a record contains only a mention, allegation, or argument. Avoid “cleared” unless an authorized investigation reached that conclusion. Avoid “exonerated” when a claim was dismissed for a procedural reason. Avoid “client list” as a label for mixed contact, calendar, flight, and communication records.

Link standards

Links allow readers to audit the work.

Every article should:

Link primary evidence where it is first discussed.
Link EFTA identifiers directly to Epstein Data.
Link court cases to the docket, filing, order, or opinion.
Link people, organizations, cases, documents, and timelines to relevant EpsteinWiki pages.
Use descriptive anchor text rather than “click here.”
Use clean URLs without tracking parameters.
Prefer stable source pages over temporary download links.
Use archived versions when a lawful public webpage has disappeared.
Check every link before submission.

Do not place a bare list of links where readers cannot tell what each source supports. Embed sources in the relevant sentence and include a final source list for verification.

The Internet Archive Wayback Machine is useful for preserving public pages, but an archived page should still be evaluated for authorship, date, authenticity, and relevance.

Survivor safety and privacy rules

Survivors are people, not research objects.

Contributors must not:

Reveal the identity of a person known only as Jane Doe unless she has publicly identified herself in that specific matter or clearly authorized identification.
Publish private addresses, personal telephone numbers, personal email addresses, dates of birth, government identifiers, medical details, or other unnecessary personal information.
Republish exposed information merely because a source failed to redact it.
Include graphic sexual detail when a clear and non graphic summary communicates the relevant fact.
Contact survivors casually, repeatedly, or without preparation and a legitimate reason.
Treat trauma related memory differences as automatic proof of dishonesty.
Use survivor testimony as bait, spectacle, or entertainment.
Identify minors or people who were minors at the time of the events without proper public sourcing and editorial review.

When uncertain, stop and request review. Publication speed never outranks survivor safety.

Living people and serious allegations require heightened review

Claims about living people can cause serious harm. A public figure’s fame does not remove the need for accuracy.

Before publishing a serious allegation about a living person:

Confirm the identity.
Locate the original source.
State who made the allegation.
Verify the exact wording.
Determine whether it was sworn.
Search for independent corroboration.
Search for denials and responses.
Review later court rulings and case outcomes.
Explain what remains unresolved.
Request editorial review.

Do not infer criminal conduct from social proximity, photographs, invitations, donations, contact entries, travel records, or professional interaction without further evidence.

If an allegation has been denied, include the denial fairly. If no response could be located, say that EpsteinWiki did not locate one. Do not claim a person refused comment unless they were actually contacted through an appropriate process and declined.

AI may assist research but cannot supply the facts

Ask Epstein AI and other research tools can help locate documents, search large collections, compare names, organize dates, and identify possible connections.

AI output is not evidence.

For every AI assisted claim:

Open the cited document.
Confirm the EFTA or source identifier.
Check the quotation against the visible image.
Read the surrounding pages.
Verify names, dates, amounts, and legal status.
Search for contrary evidence.
Write the conclusion from the source, not the generated summary.

Never use AI to guess a redacted name, fill missing words, identify a person from an uncertain photograph, manufacture a quotation, or create a citation you have not opened.

Contributors remain responsible for every sentence they submit, regardless of which tool helped draft or locate it.

Editing an existing page

Follow this sequence when updating content:

Step 1: Confirm your access and scope

Review Content Contributor Levels and Roles if you are uncertain whether you may edit the page directly. Sensitive pages may require an editor or moderator.

Step 2: Read the whole article

Do not edit a paragraph in isolation. Understand the current chronology, sources, classifications, and related pages.

Step 3: Open the existing sources

Check whether the citations still work and support the text. Report broken links rather than replacing them with a weaker source without explanation.

Step 4: Add or revise the research

Preserve supported details. Insert new material in the correct section and chronology. Add direct evidence links, denials, contrary evidence, and evidentiary limits.

Step 5: Update the connected parts

Review the Snapshot, timeline, tables, related pages, source list, tags, metadata, and SEO fields. A factual update may require changes in several places.

Step 6: Preview the page

Check headings, separator lines, tables, links, quotations, spacing, mobile readability, and source placement.

Step 7: Record what changed

Use the edit summary or editorial note to describe significant changes. Examples include “Added EFTA citations and page numbers,” “Updated case disposition,” or “Corrected identity after source review.”

Step 8: Submit for review when required

Serious allegations, survivor material, identity disputes, major rewrites, legal interpretation, and sensitive evidence require additional review.

Creating a new page

Step 1: Confirm the page does not exist

Search the Knowledge Base, indexes, alternate names, aliases, case numbers, and EFTA identifiers.

Step 2: Choose the correct template

Use the person, organization, case, document, evidence, timeline, or survivor testimony template. Do not invent a new structure when an approved one exists.

Step 3: Build the evidence file

Collect the original sources, identifiers, page numbers, dates, corroboration, denials, and contrary evidence before writing.

Step 4: Draft the complete article

Write a compelling introduction, Snapshot, documented connection, evidence sections, limits, related links, source list, editorial note, and SEO fields.

Step 5: Complete the safety review

Remove unnecessary private information. Confirm that identities are supported. Check survivor and minor protections. Escalate sensitive material.

Step 6: Complete the evidence review

Open every source again. Confirm quotations, dates, names, dollar amounts, case outcomes, and EFTA pages. Verify that each strong conclusion has evidence strong enough to support it.

Step 7: Preview and submit

Check formatting and links. Add a clear review note describing the page and any unresolved questions.

Do not publish an obviously incomplete accusation page with the promise that sources will be added later.

What not to publish

EpsteinWiki does not allow:

Fabricated or altered evidence presented as authentic.
Knowingly false claims.
Conspiracy fiction presented as fact.
Unsupported accusations.
Doxxing.
Threats or harassment.
Vigilante targeting.
Victim blaming.
Exploitation of survivor material.
Guessing redacted identities.
Private or unlawfully obtained records.
Illegal sexual abuse material.
Political disinformation campaigns.
AI generated citations or quotations that were not verified.
Plagiarized articles or unattributed copying.
Copyrighted material reproduced beyond what is necessary and lawful.
Screenshots used as substitutes for available original records.
Personal grudges presented as investigation.

Material may be rejected, removed, corrected, restricted, or referred for moderation when it violates evidence, legal, privacy, or ethical standards.

Corrections are part of the work

EpsteinWiki is an evolving public archive. New records appear. Identifications improve. Court cases change. Links break. Earlier conclusions may need revision.

If you discover an error:

Stop repeating it.
Preserve the source showing the problem.
Identify every affected page.
Correct the factual record.
Update connected timelines, tables, and links.
Add an editorial note when the change is substantive.
Notify an editor if the error concerns identity, survivor information, legal status, or a serious allegation.

The Corrections Policy distinguishes minor formatting fixes from substantive corrections affecting meaning, sourcing, identification, chronology, or context.

Do not defend an error because you wrote it. Accuracy matters more than ownership.

How to submit research, tips, and concerns

Use Contact EpsteinWiki for contributor questions, collaboration, corrections, technical problems, and editorial concerns.

Use Submit an Epstein Tip for publicly relevant evidence or investigative leads.

A useful submission includes:

Your name or preferred contact method when safe.
The subject of the tip or proposed page.
A concise explanation of why it matters.
Direct source links.
Complete EFTA, docket, exhibit, or file identifiers.
Relevant page numbers and dates.
What the evidence appears to establish.
What remains uncertain.
Any privacy, survivor, legal, or security concerns.
Whether the material has already been published elsewhere.

Do not submit illegal material, threats, hacked records, unsupported accusations, or exposed survivor information. Submission does not guarantee publication.

Contributor review checklist

Before submitting or publishing, confirm that you have:

Chosen the correct page type and template.
Searched for existing and duplicate pages.
Defined the article’s research question.
Used lawful public evidence.
Preserved the original files.
Recorded complete source identifiers.
Linked every available EFTA record to Epstein Data.
Verified OCR and quotations against the visible page.
Read surrounding pages, attachments, and complete threads.
Confirmed identities with more than a name match.
Distinguished mentions from relationships and relationships from conduct.
Classified allegations, testimony, arguments, findings, charges, convictions, denials, and leads correctly.
Checked court dockets for later rulings and final status.
Searched for contradictory evidence and denials.
Preserved supported information from the previous article.
Explained what the evidence does not prove.
Protected survivors, minors, witnesses, and private people.
Removed unnecessary personal information.
Added internal links and related pages.
Added a complete source list.
Checked every external link.
Completed the relevant SEO fields.
Previewed the page.
Requested review for high risk material.

If any answer is no, the contribution is not finished.

Frequently asked questions

Can I contribute without an account?

Yes. You can submit documented tips, corrections, broken links, research notes, and source records through the contact and tip forms. Direct editing access depends on contributor role and review.

Can I create a page for every person named in the files?

No. A name must be reliably identified and relevant enough to justify a page. Incidental, ambiguous, or context free mentions may belong in a document summary rather than a person profile.

Can I use a social media post as a source?

Use it as a lead. Locate the original document, post, recording, or public statement. Preserve the URL and date. Do not treat reposts as independent confirmation.

Can I use AI to draft an article?

AI can assist with organization and research, but every factual claim, quotation, identity, date, amount, and citation must be checked by a person against the original evidence.

What if I disagree with another contributor?

Discuss the evidence, not the person. Present the competing records, explain the conflict, and request editorial review. Do not delete a sourced position merely because you disagree with it.

What if I find a survivor’s name exposed in a government file?

Do not republish it. Flag the page or record immediately and notify the editorial team. Government publication does not cancel EpsteinWiki’s survivor protections.

What if the court dismissed the case?

Read the dismissal order and state the reason. Dismissal can result from jurisdiction, timing, standing, settlement, pleading defects, procedural failures, or a merits decision. Do not assume dismissal means the underlying allegation was false.

What if my page is edited after publication?

EpsteinWiki is collaborative. Editors may add evidence, improve sourcing, correct classifications, protect privacy, clarify language, or reorganize a page. Significant changes should be explained through edit history or editorial notes when appropriate.

How long should an article be?

Long enough to preserve the material facts, evidence, context, denials, legal status, and sources. Do not pad a thin record. Do not remove meaningful facts merely to reach an arbitrary length.

The work is cumulative

EpsteinWiki will never be completed by one person producing one grand theory. It grows through careful, connected contributions.

One contributor finds the EFTA number. Another checks the OCR. Another locates the docket. Another identifies the corporate entity. Another catches the mistaken name. Another finds the denial. Another adds the page to a timeline. Another protects a survivor whose information should never have been exposed.

That is not small work. It is how a fragmented archive becomes a public record that can withstand pressure, misinformation, and time.

Bring curiosity. Bring skepticism. Bring receipts. Leave a trail another researcher can follow.

Essential contributor resources

Page templates

External research resources

Editorial note

These instructions are educational and do not provide legal advice. They do not authorize access to private, sealed, stolen, restricted, or illegal material. Contributor access and publication decisions remain subject to EpsteinWiki’s current editorial, safety, moderation, privacy, and legal standards.

PostedDecember 6, 2025