Here is what we know. 

 1) A living person who has a biographical entry on here can now have his biographers use his blog as a source?  That is questionable, please link to the official wiki policy stating that this is reasonable and or acceptable. I looked for it for a long time and never found it.  Why? Because Corrigan has repeatedly posted blog entries and REPEATEDLY deleted them and altered information later on in an attempt to control the information that has gone out about him.  I have personally archived previous entries that he later deleted (julienpdx.blogspot.com) , as has Elmysterio (elmysterio.blogspot.com).  We cannot however, be cited as sources according to the same principles since we are in the blogosphere or whatever the hell logic is being used here.  However, neither is Corrigan in this case right? 
 2) Corrigan posted a copy of his license online; he then states he used Photoshop to edit the image. STOP RIGHT THERE.  Regardless of WHY he used Photoshop on the image, the fact remains that Photoshop was used; thereby making the image a dishonest representation of truth and suspect, he stated he did this as well, but that was conveniently removed as a citation when it became obvious that the same logic used to defend it could also be used to attack it. 
 3) We all know that the age is under dispute and this whole BS about asking people to CITE the truth is ridiculous.  There isn't a way to do this unless blogs are cited and it isn't established whether or not this is ok 

 the fact is that some of us have bought the subsequent explanations and accepted them as truth and some of us have not.  Like I've stated before, no criminal charges were filed against Kocis for making "kiddie porn," we also have the lawsuit documents (that are posted, but again, on blogs) indicating that the judge wasn't buying the sob story that Corrigan was positing (including his status as a minor; which was never proven).  Therefore, all the subsequent crap that has been thrown at us and expected to be bought as "truth" is not verifiable as it wasn't coming from a legal source.  I am lost then, as to how this article can so flatly deny that Sean Paul Lockhart's age is really 20 until a credible legal source or a non-gay-porn related news source confirms it.?