How I Verify Information on CipherLinks

Editor: Derek Mason

Sources I Trust

People often treat a “hidden wiki” as an authority — in practice, it is usually a user-maintained directory. You should view every listing as an unverified lead, not an endorsement.

I give the most weight to sources that provide accountable authorship, dates, and supporting evidence.

Source type	How I use it
UK government and National Crime Agency publications	Enforcement actions, legislation, seizures, and public warnings
Court records and published judgments	Charges, rulings, sentences, and confirmed case details
Tor Project documentation	Technical claims about Tor, onion services, and browser behavior
Peer-reviewed academic research	Network measurements, methodology, and historical analysis
Reputable security research	Technical findings supported by reproducible evidence
Archived copies	Earlier wording, publication dates, and changes over time

Forum posts, screenshots, social media claims, and directory descriptions may provide context. You will not see me present them as confirmed evidence without independent support.

How I Check Numbers and Dates

Large dark web statistics often look precise — on closer inspection, their definitions may be unclear. I check what was counted, when measurement occurred, and whether researchers could repeat it.

You should expect figures to be compared against at least two credible sources where possible. For law-enforcement claims, I prioritize the relevant agency notice and court record rather than copied news summaries.

I handle dates using the same checks:

• I separate publication dates from event dates.
• I record when an onion service was checked.
• I confirm whether quoted legislation applied during the stated period.
• I retain the original currency and valuation date for financial claims.
• I use pounds sterling when adding Bristol or wider UK context.

If sources disagree, you will see the conflict stated rather than averaged away.

How I Mark Old or Uncertain Material

People often think a failed onion address has permanently disappeared — it may simply be offline temporarily. You will see availability described only for the time I checked it.

Older material receives a visible review date or an “outdated” note. I remove addresses that cannot be supported, and I never invent replacements.

You may also see labels such as:

• Unverified — credible confirmation is missing.
• Disputed — reliable sources conflict.
• Archived — retained for historical context.
• Unavailable when checked — the service did not respond during testing.
• Updated — a material correction or status change was made.

Check My Work or Report an Error

You should compare any claim with Tor Project documentation, UK government publications, National Crime Agency notices, court judgments, or the cited academic paper. Do not open an unfamiliar onion address merely to confirm that it exists; checking a claim should not require trusting the subject.

I am Derek Mason, and I handle corrections personally. Email [email protected] with the page title, disputed wording, supporting source, and date you checked it.

You will receive a clearer review if you include archived evidence or an official record. I correct confirmed errors and mark unresolved disputes openly.