Contributor Onboarding Guide

UpdatedSeptember 6, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Your first day, first research task, and first approved contribution to EpsteinWiki

Welcome to EpsteinWiki.

You are joining a public research project built around a difficult archive. The records involve trafficking, sexual abuse, institutional failures, wealth, political power, financial systems, criminal investigations, civil litigation, survivor testimony, and decades of incomplete public accountability.

The archive is large. The stakes are real. Nobody expects a new contributor to understand everything on the first day.

Your first goal is not to solve the entire Epstein case. Your first goal is to learn how EpsteinWiki works, protect yourself and others, complete one careful task, and leave behind a source trail another researcher can verify.

This guide walks you through that process from the beginning.

The onboarding promise: You will never be criticized for slowing down to verify a source, asking for help, protecting a survivor, or saying that the available evidence does not answer the question.

Snapshot

A new contributor should complete these stages in order:

Decide how publicly identifiable you want to be.
Secure your account and research environment.
Read the conduct, editorial, evidence, and survivor safety rules.
Learn how EpsteinWiki organizes people, organizations, cases, documents, evidence, and timelines.
Learn how to search EFTA records through Epstein Data.
Choose a narrow and low risk first task.
Keep a research log.
Use the correct page template.
Verify every claim against the original source.
Ask for review before publishing sensitive material.
Learn from edits and complete the next task.

The detailed rules live in Contributor Instructions. This page is the path that gets you ready to use them.

Before creating an account, make a privacy choice

Contributing to a public investigation can expose your name, interests, schedule, writing habits, social accounts, location, or employer. Decide what you are comfortable making public before creating a profile.

You may choose to contribute under:

Your full public name.
A professional name.
A consistent research name.
A pseudonym approved for the platform.
A private identity known only to authorized administrators when that option is available.

Do not assume you need a profile photograph, personal biography, employer, city, or links to personal social accounts. A profile should help collaboration without exposing information that is unnecessary for the work.

Ask yourself:

Would I be comfortable if a hostile stranger found this profile?
Does the username connect to my private email or other accounts?
Does my profile photo reveal my home, workplace, family, or location?
Am I identifying an employer or professional license that does not need to be public?
Could my research interests expose survivor relationships or confidential work?

Read the Contributor Safety Guide and Digital Safety for EpsteinWiki Contributors and Researchers before deciding.

Privacy is not secrecy for a harmful purpose. It is a reasonable safety boundary for public interest research.

Create and secure your contributor account

Start through For Contributors or Become an Epstein Sleuth. Contributor access may be reviewed or assigned according to current roles and responsibilities.

When creating an account:

Use a unique password that is not used on any other service.
Enable multifactor authentication when available.
Use an email account appropriate for public interest research.
Store recovery codes in a secure location.
Review the information displayed on your public profile.
Do not share credentials with another contributor.
Do not remain signed in on a shared or public computer.

Your profile biography is optional unless current role requirements say otherwise. If you add one, describe your research interests or skills without overstating credentials.

Examples include:

Court docket researcher focused on Florida and federal litigation.

Archivist working on EFTA document identification and source preservation.

Contributor reviewing financial records and corporate entities.

Never claim legal, investigative, clinical, journalistic, academic, or technical expertise you do not possess.

If you experience an account problem, suspicious login, harassment, or security concern, stop work and use Contact EpsteinWiki.

Understand contributor roles

Different roles may carry different editing, review, moderation, publication, or administrative permissions. Review Content Contributor Levels and Roles for the current structure.

Access is not a ranking of personal worth. Restrictions protect:

Document integrity.
Survivor privacy.
Living people who may be misidentified.
Editorial consistency.
Site security.
The correction and review process.
Contributors who should not be placed in high risk situations before training.

New contributors may begin by submitting research, suggesting edits, correcting links, improving citations, or working in a reviewed draft process. Additional access should follow demonstrated care, reliable sourcing, respectful collaboration, and understanding of the standards.

Do not attempt to work around a permission limit. Ask what process should be used for the contribution.

Read the conduct code before entering community spaces

EpsteinWiki collaboration involves disagreement. Researchers may interpret a record differently, locate conflicting documents, or discover that a popular claim is unsupported.

The Volunteer Conduct Code establishes the behavior expected from contributors. The basic rule is simple: challenge the evidence and interpretation without attacking the person.

Contributors must not engage in:

Harassment.
Threats.
Doxxing.
Discrimination.
Victim blaming.
Sexualized comments about survivors.
Retaliation for corrections.
Pressure to publish before verification.
Coordinated targeting of people named in records.
Attempts to recruit others into unlawful access.
Public exposure of private contributor discussions.

If someone asks you to obtain records unlawfully, guess a survivor’s identity, contact a target aggressively, conceal contradictory evidence, or publish an accusation without verification, do not participate. Preserve the relevant message when safe and report the concern through the appropriate moderation channel.

Collaboration depends on trust. Trust depends on conduct.

Complete the required reading

Before your first substantive edit, read these guides:

Getting Started with EpsteinWiki explains the archive from a reader’s perspective.
Contributor Instructions provides the complete writing, sourcing, editing, and submission rules.
EpsteinWiki Investigative Standards defines lawful evidence, verification, source records, privacy, and publication review.
Editorial Standards explains evidence categories, neutral language, no guilt by association, survivor respect, corrections, and prohibited content.
How to Read an Epstein Document teaches the method for interpreting EFTA records, court filings, testimony, emails, calendars, flight logs, financial records, and multimedia.
Evidence Handling 101 explains original file preservation and source tracking.
Working With Survivor Testimony explains trauma informed summaries and privacy boundaries.
Handling Contradictory Evidence explains how to document conflicts honestly.

Do not rush through the titles. Open the pages. Save them. Return to them while working.

Learn the map of EpsteinWiki

The Knowledge Base is not organized as one continuous story. It is a connected archive.

Begin at the EpsteinWiki Knowledge Base and the Index Directory.

People

People pages explain who an individual is, why they appear in the record, what evidence documents the connection, what allegations or findings exist, what was denied, and what remains unknown.

A person page does not automatically accuse its subject of wrongdoing.

Organizations

Organization pages follow companies, banks, law firms, universities, charities, trusts, foundations, government agencies, modeling businesses, and property entities.

They help researchers follow relationships that continue across multiple people, transactions, or time periods.

Court cases

Case pages organize captions, courts, docket numbers, parties, claims, charges, evidence, motions, orders, settlements, verdicts, appeals, and final status.

The Jeffrey Epstein Litigation Index helps contributors locate related litigation.

Documents

Document pages explain a complete record such as an agreement, deposition, report, court filing, memorandum, government production, or correspondence collection.

Evidence

Evidence pages focus on discrete items or sets, including emails, photographs, calendars, flight logs, financial records, receipts, recordings, and evidence inventories.

Timelines

Timelines connect sourced events chronologically. They help reveal sequences, gaps, contradictions, and institutional responses. They do not prove causation merely because events occurred close together.

Survivor testimony

Survivor testimony pages preserve lawfully public accounts while protecting dignity, privacy, and chosen identity. These pages require special care and review.

Spend at least thirty minutes opening several strong pages in each category. Notice how sources, headings, internal links, tables, and editorial notes are used.

Learn the three main research systems

EpsteinWiki

Search EpsteinWiki first. An existing page may already contain the evidence trail, related people, court cases, denials, source list, and unanswered questions.

Search full names, alternate spellings, organizations, addresses, case numbers, aircraft registrations, email subjects, and EFTA identifiers.

Epstein Data

Epstein Data is the preferred research interface for EFTA records cited on EpsteinWiki. It supports full text searching, direct document viewing, database exploration, visual research tools, and an AI research assistant.

Search a complete identifier such as EFTA01234567, an exact phrase in quotation marks, a person’s name, an email address, or a distinctive combination of terms.

Direct document pages use this pattern:

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

AI results and OCR are research aids. They are not evidence. Open the document image and verify every quotation, name, date, amount, and conclusion.

Official and court sources

Use the DOJ Epstein Library to locate official federal releases and the FBI Vault for FBI public records collections.

Use official court systems and CourtListener for litigation. A complaint, motion, exhibit, order, verdict, and judgment each mean something different. Follow the docket through the final status.

Set up a simple research workspace

You do not need expensive software to make a responsible first contribution. You need an organized process.

Create a project folder containing:

An Original Sources folder for untouched downloads.
A Working Copies folder for OCR, highlights, notes, and conversions.
A Screenshots folder when images are needed for reference.
A Draft folder for article text.
A research log.

Your research log can be a document, spreadsheet, database, or notebook. It should record:

Field	What to record
Research question	The specific question you are trying to answer
Source title	The title or neutral description of the record
Source URL	Clean direct link
Identifier	EFTA number, docket number, exhibit, Bates number, or file name
Page	Exact page containing the evidence
Date	Date of the underlying record
Creator	Author, sender, witness, filing party, agency, or court
Finding	The narrow fact the source establishes
Limit	What the source does not establish
Related records	Links or identifiers for corroborating and contrary evidence
Review status	Unchecked, verified, disputed, or ready for editorial review

Preserve original files. Record the access date. Generate a SHA 256 hash when practical. Never edit the only copy of a source.

Choose a safe first contribution

Your first task should teach the workflow without placing a survivor, living person, or contributor at unnecessary risk.

Good first tasks include:

Fixing a broken public source link.
Adding an exact EFTA number to an existing citation.
Adding a missing page number.
Checking a quotation against the source image.
Identifying a duplicate record.
Correcting a typographical error.
Adding an existing EpsteinWiki page to a related section.
Locating the order that resolved a motion.
Adding a sourced date to a timeline.
Improving the final source list.
Adding a clear “what this does not prove” sentence.
Flagging unnecessary personal information for review.

Poor first tasks include:

Naming an unidentified survivor.
Identifying a redacted person.
Publishing a serious allegation against a living person.
Writing a page from an anonymous social media thread.
Interpreting suspected illegal material.
Merging large pages without review.
Removing sourced information because it does not fit a theory.
Launching a broad investigation involving dozens of people.

Finishing a careful small task demonstrates more readiness than announcing a dramatic investigation.

Your first sixty minute research exercise

Use this exercise before drafting a full article.

Minutes 0 through 10: Choose one claim

Select one factual statement from an existing page that cites an EFTA record, court filing, government document, or archived public source.

Minutes 10 through 20: Open the original evidence

Follow the direct link. Confirm the identifier, file, and relevant page. If the page cites EFTA evidence without an Epstein Data link, locate the complete EFTA number in Epstein Data.

Minutes 20 through 30: Read the context

Read the previous page, next page, title, headers, footers, thread, attachments, docket entry, or associated order.

Minutes 30 through 40: Classify the statement

Decide whether the source records a mention, allegation, sworn statement, party argument, official finding, denial, charge, conviction, or unresolved lead.

Minutes 40 through 50: Search for limits

Look for contradictory records, alternate identities, cancellations, denials, amended filings, later rulings, or missing attachments.

Minutes 50 through 60: Write the evidence note

Use this structure:

Source: [Direct link and identifier]

Establishes: [Narrow factual conclusion]

Does not establish: [Important limit]

Additional research: [Unresolved question or related source]

Share the note through the contributor review process. This exercise demonstrates whether you can move from a published sentence back to the source and return with a more precise conclusion.

Learn the evidence vocabulary

New contributors often make mistakes because they use one word for several different things.

Mention

A name or subject appears in a record. A mention does not establish a relationship or conduct.

Association

Evidence documents social, professional, financial, legal, academic, political, family, or operational contact. The nature and strength of the relationship must be described.

Allegation

A source claims wrongdoing. Identify the speaker, record, date, and legal or investigative status.

Sworn testimony

A person makes a statement under oath or penalty of perjury. It is evidence, not automatically a court finding.

Corroboration

Independent evidence supports an important part of a claim. Several copies of the same source are not independent corroboration.

Judicial finding

A court expressly decides a factual or legal issue within a ruling.

Criminal charge

Prosecutors formally accuse a person of an offense. A charge is not a conviction.

Conviction

Criminal responsibility is established through a guilty plea or verdict.

Investigative lead

A question, pattern, record, or relationship requires more research.

Unverified material

The authenticity, identity, accuracy, or meaning has not been established.

Use the correct word near the claim. Do not rely on a distant disclaimer to repair exaggerated language.

Learn what common records do and do not prove

Record	What it may establish	What it does not establish by itself
Contact entry	Information appeared in a contact book	Communication, friendship, travel, knowledge, or misconduct
Calendar entry	A meeting, call, trip, or reminder was recorded	That the event occurred exactly as written
Flight log	A person was recorded as a passenger or crew member	Purpose of travel or conduct at the destination
Email	A message appears in the record	That every statement was true, read, accepted, or acted upon
Photograph	People or objects appear together	Relationship, date, location, knowledge, or wrongdoing without further evidence
Financial record	Money or an asset movement was recorded	Purpose, legality, or personal control without context
Complaint	A party formally alleged specified facts	That the allegations were proven
Deposition	A witness gave sworn testimony	That every answer was accurate or accepted by a court
FBI tip	The agency received or recorded information	Investigation, corroboration, or an official finding
Court order	A judge ruled on a specified issue	Every broader claim advanced by the parties
Government production	The government released or possessed a record	That every statement inside it is true

Keep this table open while researching. It prevents some of the most common errors in Epstein reporting.

Join collaboration spaces carefully

Community spaces can help contributors find projects, ask questions, coordinate document review, and avoid duplicating work. Current public entry points may include the EpsteinWiki Community and the Epstein Forums.

Before joining a group:

Read its purpose and rules.
Use the same privacy boundaries chosen for your contributor profile.
Do not upload private or restricted records.
Do not expose another contributor’s identity.
Do not treat group consensus as evidence.
Do not move sensitive survivor material into casual discussion.
Verify research shared by other contributors before citing it.
Keep disagreements focused on sources and reasoning.

If you are uncertain where a project belongs, ask through Contact EpsteinWiki rather than posting sensitive details publicly.

Select the correct page template

EpsteinWiki uses templates so related pages contain comparable information.

Choose from:

Do not begin with a blank page when an approved template exists.

If the subject overlaps more than one type, ask what the primary purpose should be. A court exhibit might need a document page and links from a case page. A company mentioned in the exhibit may need an organization page only if enough documented context exists.

Draft your first page in the right order

Step 1: Write the evidence summary

Before writing a narrative, record what each source establishes and does not establish.

Step 2: Build the source list

Place the primary records at the top. Add high quality secondary reporting for context. Remove sources that merely repeat another source.

Step 3: Build the chronology

Create a list of sourced dates. Distinguish the date of an event from the date a document was created, filed, produced, or released.

Step 4: Write the Snapshot

Summarize who or what the page concerns, the documented connection, the strongest evidence, the current legal or investigative status, and the central limit.

Step 5: Write the body

Use the template. Organize the evidence into a readable story. Keep claims close to citations. Include denials and conflicting records where relevant.

Step 6: Add “what the evidence does not prove”

Identify the conclusion a hurried reader might draw and explain why the available record does not support it.

Step 7: Add internal links

Connect relevant people, organizations, documents, cases, evidence pages, and timelines.

Step 8: Add publishing fields

Complete the source list, editorial note, tags, suggested slug, meta title, meta description, and focus keyphrase when required.

Step 9: Preview

Check headings, separator lines, tables, spacing, quotations, mobile readability, and every link.

Step 10: Request review

Tell the reviewer what you added, what remains uncertain, and whether the page contains a serious allegation, living person, survivor material, identity question, or legal interpretation.

Use EpsteinWiki’s writing style

EpsteinWiki articles preserve all supported details while remaining readable.

The standard structure uses:

A clear H1 title.
A compelling opening.
A Snapshot near the beginning.
H2 headings for major sections.
H3 headings for subsections.
A single separator between major H2 sections.
Short, readable paragraphs.
Tables when they clarify exact comparisons, timelines, cases, or transactions.
Embedded clean links.
A final source list.
SEO and publishing fields when required.

Write in precise plain language. Explain legal and technical terms. Use narrative momentum without sensationalism.

Strong wording identifies the source:

“The email states…”
“The witness testified…”
“The complaint alleged…”
“The defendant denied…”
“The court found…”
“The available evidence does not establish…”

Weak wording hides the source:

“The files prove…”
“Everyone knows…”
“It was revealed…”
“This confirms everything…”

Compelling writing comes from documented stakes and chronology, not inflated conclusions.

Protect survivors before checking the publish button

Survivor safety is not a final proofreading task. It belongs at every stage.

Do not publish:

The identity of a person known only as Jane Doe unless she publicly identified herself in that specific matter or clearly authorized identification.
Private addresses, personal telephone numbers, personal email addresses, dates of birth, government identifiers, or medical information.
Graphic sexual detail that is not necessary to understand the record.
Exposed survivor information simply because an official source failed to redact it.
Speculation about a redacted name.
Images that identify or humiliate a survivor.

Trauma can affect memory, disclosure, sequencing, and recall. Differences in a survivor’s account do not automatically establish dishonesty. Document meaningful conflicts carefully and seek review.

If suspected child sexual abuse material appears, do not search for it, download it, save it, share it, or attempt to authenticate it. Stop and report through the appropriate platform or the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children CyberTipline.

When uncertain, do not publish. Ask for help.

Know when your work requires additional review

Request editorial or moderation review before publication when the contribution involves:

A serious allegation against a living person.
Survivor identity or testimony.
A person who was a minor.
A disputed identity.
A redacted name.
Medical or mental health information.
Private contact information.
Graphic abuse details.
Sealed or restricted records.
A record with uncertain lawful origin.
Suspected manipulated media.
Major legal interpretation.
A large rewrite of a prominent page.
Removal of substantial sourced material.
Threats, harassment, or security concerns.

Review is not punishment and does not mean the work is poor. It protects the subject, contributor, archive, and readers.

How the review process should feel

An editor may ask you to:

Add a primary source.
Correct an EFTA number.
Verify a quotation.
Clarify who made an allegation.
Add a denial.
Explain a court outcome.
Remove private information.
Narrow a conclusion.
Preserve details from the previous version.
Reorganize the article.
Add internal links or a source list.

These requests are part of collaborative publication.

When responding to review:

Address the evidence question directly.
Open the source again.
Make the correction throughout the page, including the Snapshot and tables.
Explain what changed.
Ask for clarification when the request is unclear.
Do not treat an editorial correction as a personal attack.

Editors also make mistakes. If you disagree, provide the source and explain the reasoning respectfully.

Your first week plan

Day one: Orientation and safety

Choose your privacy boundaries, secure your account, read the conduct code, and review the safety guides.

Day two: Learn the archive

Browse the Knowledge Base, indexes, page types, and several well sourced articles. Follow internal links to see how one record connects across the archive.

Day three: Learn the research systems

Search EpsteinWiki, Epstein Data, the DOJ Epstein Library, FBI Vault, and CourtListener. Practice moving from a name or phrase to an original source.

Day four: Complete the sixty minute exercise

Verify one existing claim and write the source, finding, limit, and next research question.

Day five: Make a small correction

Fix a link, page number, citation, tag, or internal connection through the appropriate contribution process.

Day six: Draft a structured contribution

Use a template to draft a small document, evidence, organization, or timeline update. Build the source list first.

Day seven: Submit and reflect

Request review. Record what you learned, what slowed you down, and what type of task you want next.

There is no prize for finishing the week quickly. The purpose is to build a repeatable process.

Common new contributor mistakes

Starting with a theory

Do not decide what happened and search only for confirmation. Begin with a question and actively seek contrary evidence.

Trusting OCR

Searchable text can misread names, dates, handwriting, dollar amounts, and email addresses. Check the visible page.

Confusing publication with verification

A DOJ or FBI file can contain an allegation, tip, clipping, or third party statement. Government possession does not make every statement true.

Treating association as guilt

A contact entry, calendar item, photograph, or flight record does not automatically establish knowledge or criminal conduct.

Creating a duplicate page

Search alternate names, organizations, cases, and identifiers before creating anything new.

Erasing previous work

When updating a page, preserve existing supported details. Reorganize them rather than deleting material that complicates the story.

Using only secondary reporting

Follow the citation to the court filing, government record, email, transcript, or other primary source.

Publishing private information

Do not repeat exposed personal information merely because it appears in a public production.

Writing a dramatic introduction before checking the facts

Build the evidence summary and chronology first. Write the opening after you know what the record supports.

Working alone when the issue is sensitive

Ask for review. The archive becomes stronger when another person checks a high risk conclusion.

Taking care of yourself

Epstein research can involve traumatic testimony, descriptions of abuse, institutional betrayal, and repeated exposure to disturbing material.

You are allowed to:

Stop reading.
Skip a document.
Decline a project.
Turn off graphic media.
Ask another trained contributor to take over.
Work on administrative or technical tasks instead.
Take days or weeks away.
Seek professional or peer support.

Do not force yourself to review material because you believe a serious researcher should tolerate it. Distress can impair judgment, sleep, concentration, and emotional regulation.

Create boundaries around research time. Avoid reviewing traumatic material immediately before sleep. Do not store graphic records where family members or children may encounter them. Use content warnings in collaborative spaces.

The work will still be here tomorrow.

Asking for help

Ask for help when you do not know:

Which template to use.
Whether two names refer to the same person.
How to describe a court disposition.
Whether a source is lawful to use.
Whether a record exposes a survivor.
How to cite an EFTA file.
Whether an allegation requires a response or denial.
Whether a page should be updated or created.
How to handle contradictory evidence.
Whether a task exceeds your role.

Use Contact EpsteinWiki for contributor support, editorial questions, technical issues, privacy concerns, and sensitive review.

Use Submit an Epstein Tip for public interest evidence or leads. Do not use a public discussion space to submit private survivor information, hacked records, threats, or illegal material.

Good investigators ask questions before a preventable error becomes public.

First contribution checklist

Before submitting your first contribution, confirm that you have:

Chosen a privacy level intentionally.
Secured your account.
Read the conduct and safety guides.
Read the Contributor Instructions.
Searched for an existing page.
Chosen a narrow research question.
Used a lawful public source.
Preserved the original file.
Recorded the exact identifier and page.
Linked EFTA evidence to Epstein Data.
Checked OCR against the document image.
Read the surrounding pages.
Classified the statement correctly.
Searched for a denial or contradictory evidence.
Verified the person’s identity.
Explained what the source does not prove.
Protected survivors and private people.
Used the correct template.
Added internal links and a source list.
Previewed the formatting and links.
Requested review when the subject is sensitive.

If any answer is no, complete that step before submitting.

Frequently asked questions

Do I need investigative experience?

No. Begin with a narrow task, follow the standards, keep a source log, and ask for review. Specialized work involving legal analysis, survivor testimony, digital forensics, or serious accusations may require additional experience and oversight.

Do I need to use my real name?

Review the current account and role requirements. Do not disclose more publicly than necessary. A consistent research identity may be appropriate depending on the role and platform policy.

Do I need to download the entire Epstein archive?

No. Start with the documents relevant to one question. Use Epstein Data and official archives to locate records. Large downloads create storage, security, privacy, and emotional burdens that a new contributor may not need.

Can I contribute without writing an article?

Yes. Link repair, citation checking, transcription, page numbering, duplicate detection, source preservation, indexing, tagging, and correction research are valuable contributions.

What if I make a mistake?

Report it quickly, preserve the correct source, and help update every affected section. The Corrections Policy treats transparent correction as part of responsible research.

What if an editor changes my work?

EpsteinWiki is collaborative. Editors may improve sourcing, classification, privacy, structure, links, or legal accuracy. Ask about changes you do not understand and respond with evidence when you disagree.

Can I contact people named in the files?

Do not begin outreach without preparation, role clarity, safety planning, and editorial coordination. Never contact a survivor casually. Never harass, threaten, impersonate, or repeatedly contact anyone.

Can I post my findings on social media first?

Verify the evidence and follow project rules before making public claims connected to EpsteinWiki. A premature post can expose a survivor, misidentify a person, compromise research, or spread an error that a later correction cannot fully undo.

Welcome to the work

The size of the Epstein archive can make individual effort feel small. It is not.

Every reliable page is made from hundreds of disciplined decisions. Someone found the document. Someone checked the page. Someone followed the docket. Someone questioned the name match. Someone added the denial. Someone removed the private address. Someone admitted the evidence did not answer the question.

That is how an archive earns trust.

Your first contribution does not need to be dramatic. It needs to be accurate, useful, safe, and reproducible.

Start small. Follow the evidence. Protect the people who were harmed. Leave the page stronger than you found it.

Welcome aboard.

Essential onboarding resources

Research systems

Editorial note

This guide is educational and does not provide legal advice. It does not authorize access to private, sealed, stolen, restricted, or illegal material. Contributor access, group participation, and publication decisions remain subject to EpsteinWiki’s current safety, editorial, moderation, privacy, and legal standards.

PostedDecember 6, 2025

ByEpsteinWiki