Editorial Standards
The evidence, writing, safety, independence, review, and correction rules governing every EpsteinWiki page
EpsteinWiki exists to preserve, organize, investigate, and explain the public record surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, their associates, survivors, institutions, properties, financial relationships, criminal investigations, civil litigation, and the systems that enabled abuse and obstructed accountability.
The subject demands aggressive research. It also demands restraint.
The archive contains verified evidence, sworn testimony, court findings, criminal convictions, allegations, denials, legal arguments, public tips, incomplete records, disputed identities, political propaganda, and material whose meaning cannot be understood from a screenshot. Survivors and witnesses live with the consequences of how these records are described. People can be harmed by misidentification, exaggeration, private information, and guilt by association.
Editorial standards are therefore not decorative language. They determine whether a page is accurate enough, fair enough, safe enough, and well sourced enough to publish.
Our standard: Follow the evidence wherever it leads, describe it no more strongly than it supports, protect the people who were harmed, and correct the record when better information appears.
Snapshot
Every EpsteinWiki page must:
- Serve a legitimate public interest.
- Rely on lawfully available evidence.
- Prioritize primary sources.
- Link EFTA records directly to Epstein Data.
- Identify who made each significant claim.
- Distinguish allegations, testimony, argument, findings, charges, convictions, denials, and unresolved leads.
- Avoid guilt by association.
- Verify the identity of people named or pictured.
- Protect survivors, minors, witnesses, and uninvolved private people.
- Include meaningful contrary evidence and denials.
- Explain what the evidence does not prove.
- Preserve existing supported information during updates.
- Use AI only as a research aid.
- Correct errors openly and promptly.
- Remain independent of political, financial, personal, and institutional pressure.
Accuracy comes before speed. Evidence comes before virality. Survivor safety comes before curiosity.
Our editorial mission
EpsteinWiki is a collaborative public interest archive and investigative research project. It preserves records that might otherwise become fragmented, buried, removed, or difficult to interpret over time.
Our work has four purposes:
- Preservation: Keep lawfully public records accessible and connected to their origins.
- Organization: Link people, organizations, cases, documents, evidence, properties, and timelines.
- Explanation: Translate complex legal, financial, investigative, and historical material into readable public knowledge.
- Accountability: Document individual conduct and institutional failure using evidence that readers can inspect.
EpsteinWiki is not a rumor board, political campaign, client list, entertainment product, or substitute for a court.
The archive may investigate powerful people and institutions. Power does not create immunity from scrutiny. It also does not reduce the evidence required for publication.
Our core principles
Evidence first
Claims must be supported by records or reliable reporting. A conclusion should never travel farther than the evidence.
Accuracy over virality
EpsteinWiki would rather publish later than publish falsely. A dramatic screenshot does not outrank a complete source review.
Survivor dignity
Survivors are not content. Their testimony must be handled with care, context, privacy, and respect.
No guilt by association
Contact, proximity, travel, correspondence, employment, attendance, or appearance in a record does not automatically establish knowledge or criminal conduct.
Transparency
Readers should be able to see where information came from, what category it belongs to, and what remains uncertain.
Independence
Editorial decisions must not be controlled by political loyalty, personal relationships, donor pressure, social media attention, or fear of reputational discomfort.
Accountability
Errors must be corrected. Significant changes should be explained. Evidence can change the article, and no contributor owns a conclusion.
These principles align with the broader ethical duties to seek truth, minimize harm, act independently, and remain accountable and transparent described by the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics.
Scope of these standards
These standards apply to:
- Knowledge Base articles.
- Person profiles.
- Organization profiles.
- Court case pages.
- Document and evidence pages.
- Timelines.
- Survivor testimony pages.
- Investigative reports.
- News summaries.
- Graphics, captions, charts, and infographics.
- Audio and video summaries.
- Social posts published in EpsteinWiki’s name.
- Contributor submissions and editorial notes.
- Corrections and updates.
An external source does not become EpsteinWiki content merely because it is linked. However, editors must still consider whether linking it exposes a survivor, republishes illegal material, amplifies a false claim, or creates unnecessary harm.
Public interest test
Information belongs on EpsteinWiki when its publication materially helps readers understand:
- Epstein’s trafficking and abuse network.
- Recruitment, facilitation, or concealment.
- Criminal investigations and prosecution decisions.
- Civil litigation and survivor efforts to obtain accountability.
- Financial institutions, transactions, companies, trusts, properties, or professional services connected to the record.
- Institutional access, reputation management, or enabling conduct.
- Government transparency, disclosure, redaction, or records preservation.
- The historical development of the public record.
- Misinformation that materially distorts the evidence.
Public availability alone does not create public interest. A private address, medical detail, family fact, or unrelated personal record may be publicly accessible while adding nothing necessary to the investigation.
Editors must ask:
- What does publication help the public understand?
- Is the information necessary to that purpose?
- Is there a less harmful way to communicate the same fact?
- Is the source lawful and reliable?
- Does the evidentiary value outweigh the privacy or safety risk?
If the answer is unclear, delay publication and request review.
Information classification system
Important statements must be classified near the claim. Labels should not be buried in a general disclaimer.
Verified fact
A fact directly established by reliable primary evidence or multiple independent sources. Verification of a document’s existence does not automatically verify every statement inside it.
Allegation
A claim of wrongdoing made in a complaint, interview, testimony, public statement, government tip, or other source that has not been established as fact.
Sworn testimony
A statement made under oath or penalty of perjury. Sworn testimony is evidence, but it is not automatically a judicial finding.
Legal argument
A position advanced by a party, lawyer, or friend of the court in a motion, brief, hearing, or appeal. A party’s argument is not the court’s decision.
Official or judicial finding
A conclusion expressly reached by an authorized court, jury, agency, or official body within the scope of its authority.
Criminal charge
A formal accusation by prosecutors. A charge is not a conviction.
Conviction or guilty plea
Criminal responsibility established through verdict or plea. The article must identify the offense and disposition accurately.
Denial or contrary account
A response disputing an allegation or presenting a materially different account. Meaningful denials and contrary evidence must be included fairly.
Investigative lead
A pattern, reference, relationship, archive entry, or open question requiring additional research.
Open source intelligence
Information gathered through lawful public databases, metadata, archives, mapping, corporate filings, property records, or digital investigation methods.
Unverified material
A rumor, anonymous claim, screenshot, identity match, AI output, or document whose authenticity, accuracy, or meaning has not been established.
Unverified material may be preserved as a clearly labeled lead when the public interest justifies it. It must never be presented as established fact.
Evidence hierarchy
Sources carry different evidentiary weight. Editors should assess origin, authenticity, proximity to the event, legal status, corroboration, and potential bias.
Highest value primary records
- Court orders, opinions, judgments, verdicts, and plea records.
- Official agency findings and authenticated government records.
- Contemporaneous emails, financial records, travel records, contracts, and corporate filings with established provenance.
- Complete recordings, photographs, and files with verified origin.
- Sworn testimony and declarations.
- First person public survivor testimony.
Important but claim dependent records
- Complaints, indictments, answers, motions, briefs, and exhibits.
- Police and investigative reports.
- FBI interview summaries and tip records.
- Calendars, contact books, flight logs, and address records.
- News interviews and public statements.
- Public records databases and archived websites.
These records are often essential, but what they prove depends on the document type and context.
Secondary sources
- Original investigative journalism.
- Books with transparent sourcing.
- Academic research.
- Professional analysis.
- Responsible documentaries and podcasts.
Secondary sources provide context and may contain original interviews. They should link or identify the underlying evidence whenever possible.
Lead sources
- Social media posts.
- Anonymous tips.
- Unauthenticated screenshots.
- AI summaries.
- Crowd sourced identity suggestions.
- Commentary that does not disclose its evidence.
Lead sources may guide research. They cannot carry serious factual conclusions without verification.
Sourcing requirements
Every significant factual claim should have a source close enough that readers can identify what supports it.
Articles should:
- Link directly to primary records when available.
- Use descriptive anchor text.
- Identify the record type.
- Include exact page numbers.
- Include full EFTA, docket, exhibit, Bates, or file identifiers.
- Preserve document dates and filing dates separately.
- Cite original reporting rather than copies.
- Distinguish reporting from commentary.
- Archive lawful public webpages when appropriate.
- Identify uncertainty and missing records.
- Include a final source list.
Several websites repeating the same report are not independent corroboration. A screenshot and the document it crops are one source. Two databases holding copies of the same government production are one underlying source.
Search result pages, temporary download links, tracking links, and AI answers should not replace stable source pages.
EFTA and Epstein Data citation standards
When an article relies on a record released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, cite the complete EFTA identifier and link directly to the corresponding Epstein Data document page whenever available.
Direct links follow this pattern:
An EFTA citation should include:
- Complete EFTA number.
- Relevant page.
- Document description.
- Creator or speaker.
- Date of the underlying record when known.
- Evidentiary classification.
An EFTA number is a production identifier. It is not a date, case number, reliability rating, or proof that every statement was verified.
The DOJ Epstein Library is the official federal release source. Its search page warns that handwriting and unusual formats can create unreliable results. Epstein Data improves search and access, but OCR, generated analysis, and extracted metadata must be checked against the visible source.
Do not cite only an AI summary, search result, entity report, or OCR transcription. Open the record.
Court record standards
Court filings must be described by type and procedural status.
Complaints and indictments
A complaint contains a party’s allegations. An indictment contains formal criminal charges. Neither is a conviction.
Answers
An answer contains admissions, denials, defenses, and responses. A denial is not automatically proof that the allegation is false.
Motions and briefs
A motion asks the court to act. A brief argues a party’s position. Locate the order resolving the issue.
Affidavits, declarations, and depositions
These preserve sworn statements. Report them as testimony or sworn statements unless a court adopted a fact as a finding.
Exhibits
An exhibit is material submitted for a legal purpose. Determine whether it was admitted, authenticated, challenged, sealed, stricken, or relied upon by the court.
Orders and opinions
An order states what the judge decided. Describe only the issues the court actually resolved. Check whether the decision was amended, stayed, vacated, reconsidered, or reversed.
Verdicts and judgments
A verdict records the fact finder’s decision. A judgment records the formal disposition. Neither proves unrelated allegations outside the issues decided.
Settlements and dismissals
A settlement may resolve claims without an admission. A dismissal may rest on jurisdiction, limitations, standing, pleading, settlement, procedure, or the merits. Read the governing document before describing what the result means.
Court citations should include the full case caption, court, docket number, docket entry, filing title, date, page, and direct link. Use official court records when available and CourtListener as a public docket source.
Attribution language
Attribution must identify who is speaking and what kind of source contains the statement.
Preferred language includes:
- “The document records…”
- “The email states…”
- “The calendar lists…”
- “The flight log identifies…”
- “The witness testified…”
- “The complaint alleged…”
- “Prosecutors charged…”
- “The defendant denied…”
- “The court found…”
- “The jury convicted…”
- “The parties settled…”
- “The available evidence does not establish…”
- “EpsteinWiki has not located independent corroboration…”
- “The identity remains uncertain…”
Avoid phrases that erase the source or inflate the status:
- “The files prove…”
- “The FBI confirmed…” when the record is only a tip.
- “The DOJ found…” when the department merely released a third party record.
- “Everyone knows…”
- “It was revealed…”
- “This confirms everything…”
- “The person was involved…” when the record shows only a mention.
Precision is stronger than vague certainty.
No guilt by association
The Epstein record includes survivors, witnesses, employees, attorneys, investigators, journalists, service providers, medical professionals, academics, public officials, event guests, relatives, message recipients, and incidental contacts.
An appearance in a calendar, contact book, flight log, photograph, evidence inventory, email archive, or government production does not automatically establish criminal conduct.
Articles must distinguish:
- Incidental mention.
- Social contact.
- Professional interaction.
- Employment.
- Legal representation.
- Business relationship.
- Financial participation.
- Operational involvement.
- Alleged misconduct.
- Documented criminal conduct.
Do not use “client list” as a label for a contact book, calendar, flight log, or mixed archive. Do not convert a scheduled meeting into a completed meeting without confirmation. Do not convert travel to a city into travel to a specific property. Do not convert a photograph into proof of knowledge or conduct outside the frame.
Every person page must explain both the documented connection and its limits.
Living people and serious allegations
Serious claims about living people require heightened verification and editorial review.
Before publication, editors must confirm:
- Identity.
- Original source.
- Exact allegation.
- Speaker or filing party.
- Date and context.
- Whether the statement was sworn.
- Independent corroboration.
- Relevant denials or responses.
- Later court rulings or case outcomes.
- The public interest served by publication.
- The wording of the headline, Snapshot, captions, and metadata.
An allegation must be attributed where it appears. A denial should be presented fairly and close to the disputed claim when relevant.
If no response has been located, say that EpsteinWiki did not locate one. Do not state that a person “refused to comment” unless appropriate outreach occurred and the person actually declined.
Editorial review should consider whether the evidence is strong enough for the prominence given to the claim. A passing allegation should not become a sensational headline.
Identity verification
A matching name is a lead, not an identification.
Before identifying a person, compare:
- Full name.
- Middle name or initial.
- Nickname or alias.
- Occupation.
- Employer.
- Address.
- Email domain.
- Telephone number.
- Age.
- Geography.
- Known associates.
- Date of the record.
Common names, initials, OCR errors, and assistant shorthand create substantial risk of misidentification.
Photographic identification requires the original image or highest available quality, source, date, location, sequence, caption, metadata when available, and independent comparison. Reverse image search and face recognition may generate leads. They do not establish identity by themselves.
If identity remains uncertain, leave the person unidentified or state the uncertainty clearly. Do not crowd source a sensitive identity in a public post.
Survivor centered editorial standards
Survivor testimony is central to understanding the Epstein case. It must not be treated as spectacle.
EpsteinWiki will:
- Use a survivor’s chosen public name.
- Preserve protected pseudonyms.
- Attribute testimony accurately.
- Summarize with necessary context.
- Avoid unnecessary graphic detail.
- Distinguish testimony from judicial findings.
- Include content warnings when appropriate.
- Avoid language that blames survivors for grooming, coercion, delayed disclosure, memory differences, or continued contact.
- Respect a survivor’s stated boundaries when they are known.
EpsteinWiki will not:
- Reveal a Jane Doe identity unless she publicly identified herself in that specific matter or clearly authorized identification.
- Republish exposed private information because another source failed to redact it.
- Use sexualized images of survivors for attention.
- Describe a survivor primarily through abuse endured.
- Treat survivor accounts as entertainment, bait, or a competition for credibility.
- Contact survivors casually, repeatedly, deceptively, or without preparation.
Trauma can affect memory, sequencing, disclosure, and recall. Differences must be evaluated with context and corroboration, not treated as automatic proof of dishonesty.
Contributors must read Working With Survivor Testimony before handling these records. Trauma informed editorial practice is also supported by the Global Center for Journalism and Trauma style guide.
Minors and private information
EpsteinWiki applies heightened privacy protection to minors and people who were minors at the time of the events.
Do not publish unnecessary:
- Home addresses.
- Personal telephone numbers.
- Personal email addresses.
- Dates of birth.
- Government identifiers.
- School or workplace locations that create a present safety risk.
- Medical or therapy details.
- Family information.
- Financial account information.
- Travel details unrelated to the public interest.
Public availability does not eliminate the duty to minimize harm. A government archive may inadvertently expose personal information. EpsteinWiki should not amplify it.
When private information is necessary to explain ownership, identity, jurisdiction, or another material fact, publish the minimum required detail and request editorial review.
Graphic and illegal material
Graphic sexual detail, abuse imagery, autopsy material, and disturbing evidence require a clear public interest justification and senior editorial review.
Use summaries when the factual significance can be explained without reproduction. Content should never be included to shock, titillate, humiliate, or increase engagement. This approach is consistent with Reuters Journalistic Standards, which require a valid news reason for graphic material and consideration of whether it is necessary to understanding the story.
Contributors must never search for, download, save, share, upload, or attempt to authenticate suspected child sexual abuse material. An official evidence inventory, court description, or agency statement is sufficient.
If suspected illegal material appears unexpectedly:
- Stop reviewing it.
- Do not copy or redistribute it.
- Preserve only lawful information needed to report the incident.
- Notify the relevant platform or authorized editor.
- Report through the NCMEC CyberTipline when appropriate.
If anyone is in immediate danger, contact emergency services.
Anonymous sources, tips, and whistleblowers
Anonymous information can reveal important leads, but anonymity increases the need for verification.
Editors should know, when possible:
- The source’s identity.
- How the source obtained the information.
- Whether the source had direct access.
- The source’s motive and potential conflicts.
- Whether the information can be independently corroborated.
- What risks disclosure may create.
A source’s identity may be protected publicly. The reason for anonymity should be explained without exposing the source when the information is used in an article.
Anonymous accusations should not be published as fact. A tip is a lead until records, witnesses, or other independent evidence support it.
Do not promise legal privilege, immunity, confidentiality beyond the project’s actual capacity, or protection from government process. Contributors who receive sensitive whistleblower material should stop and seek authorized editorial guidance before storing, sharing, or analyzing it.
Use Submit an Epstein Tip for documented public interest leads.
Lawful evidence and access
EpsteinWiki uses lawfully available public records, authorized disclosures, court dockets, government archives, public records responses, consent, and legitimate investigative access.
Contributors must not:
- Hack accounts or systems.
- Steal or use credentials.
- Bypass access controls.
- Impersonate another person.
- Enter private databases without authorization.
- Ask another person to obtain evidence unlawfully.
- Purchase illegal material.
- Violate a sealing order or protective order.
- Upload restricted records to an AI service.
Material described as a “leak” requires review before anyone downloads, redistributes, cites, or publishes it. The label does not explain whether the source is lawful, manipulated, private, sealed, or dangerous.
The public interest does not authorize illegal access.
AI and automated research tools
EpsteinWiki may use AI and automated tools for:
- Search.
- OCR.
- Transcription.
- Document organization.
- Entity extraction.
- Metadata analysis.
- Timeline assembly.
- Duplicate detection.
- Translation.
- Draft organization.
AI output is not evidence.
Every generated claim must be checked against the source. Every generated quotation must be verified word for word. Every identity, date, amount, legal status, and citation must be confirmed by a person.
Editors must not use AI to:
- Guess redacted identities.
- Fill illegible text without disclosure.
- Identify a person from an uncertain photograph as fact.
- Manufacture quotations.
- Invent citations.
- Summarize a record that was not opened.
- Make legal or factual conclusions without human review.
- Process private, sealed, illegal, or restricted evidence on an unauthorized system.
Ask Epstein AI can locate possible sources. The linked source must be opened before citation.
Contributors remain responsible for every sentence they submit, regardless of the tool used.
OCR, transcription, and translation
Searchable text is a finding aid. The visible or audible source controls.
OCR commonly misreads names, handwriting, dates, email addresses, telephone numbers, dollar amounts, stamps, and page numbers. Important quotations must be checked against the image.
Transcripts must be compared with the corresponding audio or video when possible. Cite the time stamp. Identify whether the transcript is official, human prepared, or automated.
Translations should identify the original language and translator or method when relevant. Material ambiguity should be disclosed. Important disputed wording may require a second qualified translation.
Use brackets or [illegible] rather than silently guessing missing text.
Corrections and updates
EpsteinWiki is a living archive. New evidence may require expansion, clarification, reclassification, or correction.
Minor corrections may include:
- Typographical errors.
- Formatting problems.
- Broken links.
- Citation style.
- Small wording clarifications that do not change meaning.
Substantive corrections may include:
- Misidentification.
- Incorrect sourcing.
- Unsupported claims.
- Significant factual errors.
- Incorrect chronology.
- Misrepresentation of a record.
- Missing legal status.
- Incomplete contextual framing.
- Exposed private information.
Substantive changes should receive an editorial note when appropriate. A correction should identify what changed without repeating harmful private information unnecessarily.
When updating an article, preserve existing supported facts unless they are disproven, duplicated, irrelevant, unsafe, or removed through editorial review. A rewrite should improve the story without erasing the record.
Follow the complete Corrections Policy.
Conflicting evidence
Conflicting records should be documented, not hidden.
Editors should evaluate:
- Who created each source.
- When it was created.
- Proximity to the event.
- Whether the statement was sworn.
- Whether the source had first hand knowledge.
- Contemporaneous support.
- Motive and potential bias.
- Internal consistency.
- Independent corroboration.
- Later findings or corrections.
An article may present competing accounts and conclude that the available evidence does not resolve the conflict.
Do not choose the source that produces the most dramatic story merely because certainty is more satisfying than ambiguity.
Use Handling Contradictory Evidence for the full method.
Removal, restriction, and archival preservation
EpsteinWiki generally does not remove accurate, lawfully sourced, publicly relevant information solely because it is uncomfortable or reputationally damaging.
Removal, redaction, limitation, or temporary restriction may be appropriate when material involves:
- Doxxing.
- Safety risks.
- Nonpublic personal information.
- Fabricated or manipulated evidence.
- Verified misidentification.
- Legally sensitive survivor information.
- Material posted unlawfully.
- Illegal sexual abuse material.
- A sealing or protective order.
- A source that cannot be authenticated.
- A serious claim that does not meet the publication threshold.
Archived historical material may contain offensive language, disproven allegations, or outdated reporting standards. Preservation does not imply endorsement. Context, labels, and editorial notes should explain why the record is retained and how its status changed.
Independence and conflicts of interest
EpsteinWiki is independent of law enforcement agencies, intelligence agencies, political parties, governments, legal teams, and people or institutions documented in the archive.
Contributors and editors must disclose material conflicts that could affect their work, including:
- Personal relationships with a subject or source.
- Employment or financial ties.
- Legal representation.
- Political campaign roles.
- Paid advocacy.
- Pending litigation.
- Gifts, travel, or compensation related to coverage.
- Personal disputes that create a risk of retaliatory publication.
Disclosure does not always require public identification. It does require notice to an appropriate editor and possible reassignment or additional review.
Donations, sponsorships, audience pressure, and partnerships must not control factual conclusions or suppress accurate reporting.
Authorship, plagiarism, and copyright
Contributors must write original summaries and credit the work of others.
Do not:
- Copy another article without attribution.
- Present another researcher’s discovery as your own.
- Reproduce long copyrighted passages when a summary and short quotation are sufficient.
- Remove source watermarks or attribution.
- Upload books, articles, photographs, videos, or databases without a lawful basis.
- Use AI paraphrasing to conceal plagiarism.
Short quotations should serve a clear evidentiary or explanatory purpose and link to the source. Public records may still contain copyrighted material created by private parties. Government possession does not automatically place everything in the public domain.
Graphics and photographs require source, licensing, permission, fair use analysis, or original creation as appropriate.
Headlines, summaries, search text, and graphics
The headline must be supported by the article, not merely by an allegation buried inside it.
Headlines and metadata must not:
- State an allegation as fact.
- Imply guilt from association.
- Identify an uncertain person.
- Omit a decisive acquittal, dismissal, or contrary finding.
- Use sexualized or humiliating language about a survivor.
- Promise evidence the article does not contain.
The Snapshot, meta description, social preview, image caption, alt text, and infographic must meet the same accuracy standard as the body.
Graphics should clarify relationships, timelines, transactions, court outcomes, or evidence categories. They must not visually place an incidental contact beside convicted offenders in a way that falsely implies equivalent conduct.
Do not use a person’s photograph as the featured image for an allegation page unless identity, relevance, and editorial fairness have been reviewed.
Article structure and readability
A complete EpsteinWiki article generally includes:
- Clear H1 title.
- Compelling evidence based introduction.
- Snapshot.
- Background or overview.
- Documented connection.
- Evidence appearances with direct links.
- Court cases or official proceedings when relevant.
- Allegations, testimony, findings, denials, and disputes.
- What the evidence proves and does not prove.
- Related people, organizations, documents, cases, and timelines.
- Complete source list.
- Editorial note.
- SEO and publishing fields when required.
Use H2 headings for major sections and H3 headings for subsections. Place one separator between major H2 sections. Keep paragraphs readable. Use tables when exact comparison improves understanding.
Articles should contain all material supported details. Editors should improve narrative flow, organization, and pacing rather than removing facts merely to shorten the page.
Editorial review levels
Routine factual maintenance may receive ordinary review. Higher risk work requires additional scrutiny.
Routine review
Examples include broken links, citation formatting, spelling, internal links, tags, and noncontroversial date corrections.
Standard editorial review
Examples include new document pages, organization profiles, timeline additions, court summaries, and major article expansions.
Heightened review
Required for:
- Serious allegations against living people.
- Survivor identity or testimony.
- Minors.
- Disputed identity.
- Redacted names.
- Graphic content.
- Medical information.
- Sealed or restricted records.
- Material with uncertain lawful origin.
- Major legal conclusions.
- High profile page rewrites.
- Substantial deletion of sourced material.
- Anonymous source claims.
- Potential conflicts of interest.
Review should examine the entire presentation, including headline, Snapshot, captions, tables, graphics, source list, related links, and SEO text.
What EpsteinWiki does not allow
EpsteinWiki does not allow:
- Fabricated evidence.
- Manipulated material presented as authentic.
- Knowingly false claims.
- Unsupported accusations.
- Conspiracy fiction presented as fact.
- Doxxing.
- Threats.
- Harassment.
- Vigilantism.
- Victim blaming.
- Exploitation of survivor material.
- Political disinformation campaigns.
- Guessing redacted identities.
- Illegal or unlawfully obtained material.
- Plagiarism.
- AI generated citations that were not verified.
- Personal retaliation presented as investigation.
- Payment for false or sensational claims.
- Deliberate concealment of contradictory evidence.
Material may be rejected, corrected, restricted, removed, or referred for moderation when it violates these standards.
Publication checklist
Before publication, confirm that the article:
- Serves a legitimate public interest.
- Uses lawful public evidence.
- Identifies the original sources.
- Links all available EFTA evidence to Epstein Data.
- Provides exact page and docket citations.
- Verifies OCR, quotations, identities, dates, and amounts.
- Distinguishes document creation from release dates.
- Classifies allegations, testimony, arguments, findings, charges, convictions, denials, and leads correctly.
- Avoids guilt by association.
- Includes meaningful denials and contrary evidence.
- Explains what the evidence does not prove.
- Protects survivors, minors, witnesses, and private people.
- Contains no unnecessary personal information.
- Preserves supported material from previous versions.
- Uses AI only for verified assistance.
- Credits authors, researchers, and copyrighted sources.
- Discloses relevant conflicts to an editor.
- Uses an accurate headline, Snapshot, caption, graphic, and meta description.
- Includes internal links and a source list.
- Has received the required level of review.
If any answer is no, delay publication.
Corrections, complaints, and editorial contact
Good faith correction requests supported by evidence are welcome.
A correction request should include:
- Exact page URL.
- Disputed sentence or issue.
- Supporting documentation.
- Relevant context.
- Contact information when follow up is appropriate.
Use the Corrections Policy and Contact EpsteinWiki for corrections, privacy concerns, misidentification, editorial questions, or removal requests.
Use Submit an Epstein Tip for public interest evidence and research leads.
EpsteinWiki will not remove accurate public interest information solely to manage reputation. It will correct inaccurate, misleading, misidentified, unlawfully posted, or dangerously exposed material.
Our editorial philosophy
Powerful systems benefit when the public record is too fragmented, technical, frightening, or exhausting to follow.
EpsteinWiki exists to resist that disappearance.
We believe evidence matters.
We believe survivors matter.
We believe documentation matters.
We believe uncertainty should be admitted rather than disguised.
We believe corrections strengthen an archive.
We believe compelling storytelling and factual discipline can exist on the same page.
The historical record should remain accessible, understandable, and honest enough to withstand pressure from every direction.
Related EpsteinWiki policies and guides
- Mission and Principles
- Research Methodology
- Corrections Policy
- Privacy Policy
- Terms of Use
- EpsteinWiki Investigative Standards
- Contributor Instructions
- Contributor Onboarding Guide
- How to Read an Epstein Document
- Evidence Handling 101
- Handling Contradictory Evidence
- Working With Survivor Testimony
- Volunteer Conduct Code
- Digital Safety for EpsteinWiki Contributors and Researchers
Research and ethics resources
- Epstein Data research archive
- United States Department of Justice Epstein Library
- FBI Vault Epstein records
- CourtListener
- Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics
- Global Center for Journalism and Trauma style guide
- Reuters Journalistic Standards
- NCMEC CyberTipline
Editorial note
These standards are an editorial policy and do not provide legal advice. They do not authorize access to private, sealed, stolen, restricted, or illegal material. EpsteinWiki may revise this policy as law, technology, evidence systems, safety needs, and editorial practices evolve.