Talk:Gerry Georgatos

8-Ball

Gerry most certainly did not start the computer recycling program. It started around 1996, long before he was a student, and was run for most of it by a couple of students before a coup on the regs allowed him to eliminate political rivals. Then he renamed it "8-ball". I've removed the entire section. Its straight up untrue, and honestly considering the poor standing he has amongst murdoch folks, this article really needs to be given closer scrutiny. A lot of the claims don't add up. 59.167.111.154 (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The Stringer

We could probably do with some clarification in regard to The Stringer. According to the website, The Stringer was founded by Jennifer Kaeshagen. I'm not sure, based on that, what role Gerry Georgatos had in this, but my assumption is that he was a co-founder, or that was otherwise involved in its creation. Accordingly, I'm open to saying that he helped launch the publication, or that he helped found it, but I think we need to acknowledge in the wording that he was not the sole person involved. - Bilby (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC) You are correct Jennifer Kaeshagen founded "The Stringer". Gerry had a hand its founding and has been there from the start - Woximp

Computer recycling

I'm a bit concerned about the current wording, "It became one of the largest computer recycling operations in Australia". There are a lot of major computer recycling operations around, so there is likely to be some competition in regard to being the largest. However, this operation is unnamed, and the only source being used is an article in News.com [1]. I'd normally be ok with that, but reading the article it seems like they published a series of short bios, each of which reads like they were provided by the WikiLeaks party for their candidates. It doesn't feel like enough evidence, on its own, to support such a strong claim, so I've tagged the statement. - Bilby (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC) Gerry did build Students Without Borders and many programs through this with one of the 8ball computer recycling program where he ran through universities and students gained academic merit. It did become one of the largest computer recycling operations with something like 50 or 60,000 computers recycled but he was that controversial at the university he was at as a whistleblower and in taking on the chancellery that after he quit the tertiary sector they wiped much of him and his work from online archives. Probably the way wikipedia has covered the computer recycling is fine. I don't think he will mind.

-- He didn't start the program at all. It was in place for at least a decade before he showed up. The whole section needs to be removed.

Other stuff

Gerry has been a hugely influential figure for two or three decades but behind the scenes in social justice and politically. He has orchestrated and crafted many things that others have the public face or credit for. I'd like to see wikipedia recognise this to some extent but without comprising citation criteria and wikipedia guidelines. I've looked at the view history and notice that stuff comes up and goes. That's fine as long as we do not lose a piece of history that wikipedia should serve. Gerry has only stepped out from behind the scenes somewhat only in the last ten years. How do we capture his behind the scenes work in some of the nation's biggest issues and social justice outcomes and his coming out slowly in the last decade? He missed being elected to the Australian Senate in 2013 by a couple of thousand votes after committing political suicide with a naive symbolic gesture and had he not done this he would have been the world's first Wikileaks politician. He is a powerful voice and thinker who is accused often of being radical. He graduated in philosophy and has several degrees after studying various fields.

He also fought the last two years and still is an incredible battle in Australia's Supreme Court on a defamation matter involving the National Indigenous Times and him against a mining company over Aboriginal people and no media in the nation has covered this case because it's vastly political. Gerry can't speak to it but he was also on contempt which he recently defeated and has said in court that he would be prefer to be financially destroyed than retract and apologise. How do we capture this event that for two years has slipped the radar?

How do we capture his previous whistleblowing on corruption and on Indonesian children he discovered in prisons and then pretty much was the main driver to their freedom? He worked secretly with the Indonesian government and then through the Australian government and the Australian Human Rights Commission to secure their freedom. This is huge. Who does what he did?

Gerry's research in suicides of Aboriginal people makes him the real expert in the nation and he is the major force in the nation on driving responses to this. He is an expert on suicide prevention, he is also an expert on racism but he is not the traditional academic. If it was not for him there would not be the current response to these suicides that there are now. He has also accused academics and funded bodies of just producing reports and not making any difference. He has dumped report building and is radically pushing for changes that are tangible. He does not use his academic titles and qualifications because he says all people are equal and that titles are rubbish. In public speeches he refused to acknowledge special guests and dignitaries and acknowledges everyone equally and once. He has Masters in Social Justice Advocacy and a Masters in Human Rights Education, his Phd covered much ground in suicides, racism, prisons, deaths in custody. He is a constant advocate for the homeless and the disadvantaged and for troubled Aboriginal people. He prefers to write for the wider audience than for academic journals which he argues are a waste of time and do not inform the masses.

He resigned from the Australian Greens after only two years in the party after they asked him to join them. He resigned because he found them soft on policies and in public debate. He had challenged for the WA Senate candidacy for the Greens in 2008 but was considered too radical and left wing and was soundly defeated by Senator Siewert. This was before he lost the Greens candidacy for a State seat to Hsien Harper. He quit the Greens soon after. He joined Wikileaks when they asked him and was a near certainty to be elected to the Australian Senate but blew it when he gave a symbolic preference to an Aboriginal candidate for the purpose of trying to send a public message for political parties to context more Aboriginal candidates. Dirt campaigns have been dumped on him and he has suffered persecution but he never cares, he lets it all go. He once said that the most courageous are those who are persecuted but there is no media lens to watch over them. His support of the Aboriginal candidate was used against him. He stated his effective first preference was the Greens Ludlam. He stated Ludlma would indeed get his preferences. He was right, the Aboriginal candidate was no threat to Ludlam and Gerry's preferences went to Ludlam but he blew being elected himself because of the tragic fallout. Had he been elected to the Senate he would have been the world's first Wikileaks politician, the strongest voice from the left in more than 60 years of Australian politics and a renowned social justice campaigner and three times whistleblower, an anti-corruption campaigner. But he continues to work from behind the scenes with an increasing public presence and he sits on federal government boards in mental health and suicide prevention.

I think we are remiss to not include the above if we can cite all this. But Gerry is not one of these people who has staff to manufacture or archive a profile. This is why there is not as much of him recorded as there should be.

He also has a long history in the refugees movement and has aid work in the 1980s, was involved with helping people from Galang, he set up humanitarian stuff in the 1990s and crafted all sorts of stuff for social justice causes and politicians. He is controversial and it is true polarising. His research and writings are often plagiarised and he doesn't care. He wills all this away. Any advice on how to advance within wikipedia's guidelines some of the above? - Woximp

We've had a series of brand new accounts adding material about Georgatos, each newly created simply to edit this page, and each focused on writing about his efforts. I certainly applaud what I've seen him do, but the Wikipedia article has to stay neutral, and we need to be careful that it doesn't become a resume or puff piece for any subject that is being covered.

In relation to the issues above: if the defamation case isn't being covered in reliable sources, we cant cover it. Presumably when it is complete it may be picked up by mainstream media, in which case it can be mentioned here, but our hand are tied until there is third party material we can draw on. Similarly, we can;t cover secret work with the Indonesian and Australian governments unless it ceases to be secret and get's coverage. It isn't a matter of not wanting to cover these things, so much as under Wikipedia's policies we are unable to cover them without a source to point to.

In regard to his work and impact, the problem we face is that we can't infer his importance from sources. We need a third-party reliable source that clearly states his importance on topics such as suicide, and even then it is best if it isn't a single, one-off reference.

Overall, we're faced with a problem that Wikipedia can't be used to provide coverage of someone (good or bad) without the sources to back up the claims. What I tend to see here is a lot of well meant but problematic attempts to interpret sources to make an argument about his actions, or selectively highlighting particular statements to draw an overall picture. It is clearly meant for the best of reasons, in an attempt to properly portray the subject's significance, but sadly Wikipedia is limited to what is unquestionably stated in third party sources, and thus a lot of this isn't possible. - Bilby (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Bilby, I am knew to Wikipedia and was excited to see that Wikipedia is covering great individuals like Gerry but whom I have no contact with other than I have followed his campaigns. I looked at View History and the page was begun by an established Wikipedia account holder, Pigmypossum, at least 8 years old. Pigmypossum has started up other pages too and good for this. I notice you deleted a lot of what he put up. Subsequent edits by others have mostly been deleted. I will only refer to my edits. Bilby, I agree to what you pointed about the defamation and I certainly do not want to get Gerry, the Indigenous Times or Wikipedia into any trouble. I do understand sub judice however I accept your explanation. I did cite an independent article and that was from The Guardian newspaper and also an NITV run news clip. Bilby, I am very disappointed that you did not read all my edited in material and the references, many of them independent references such as from the ABC, which is Australia's largest news. You just deleted all the edits in one sweep minutes after they were posted. That seems very strange to me. I spent three hours on those edits and in getting right the references. I expected that they would be examined and alerted to Watch this Page, I did not expect they would all just be undone. It is a disincentive for me to ever do another Wikipedia edit. I will not put them back up but would really appreciate if you could review my edits please as I spent three hours to do it all correctly. You state that much of what I included was not third party sources but most of it was like the suicide work Gerry has done and I included ABC references. I accept a lot of what you write but would appreciate that you read everything and remove only that which is not appropriate and not the whole lot. You also removed the Controversies section but why? Is not his breakthrough journalism on one of Australia's hottest topics at the moment on the closure of communities not important? I understand the defamation references had to go but did most of the rest have to go. To understand Wikipedia better I have now examined some 20 similar pages and it seems there is much on these pages that should not be there, and wealthy individuals, political figures and other types get all sorts of mentions but here we have someone very worthy with critical work being done and I just don't understand how much what I or an established Wikipedia account holder like Pymgypossum does not rate a mention. But I do respect what you are saying and Wikipedia's limitations. Could you possibly review my edits so I did not waste my time? Gerry's stuff and people like him should be highly valued Wikipedia content. Thank you, Woximp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woximp (talk • contribs) 04:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm always very sorry if I need to revert good faith additions, such as your own. It is not something that I wish to do. I went through all of your additions carefully, and returned some that I felt were viable, but I had significant concerns about other changes.

In regard to specific additions:

• It is true that you cited The Guardian for the defamation case. However, the article you linked to, [2], makes no mention of defamation. It is likely that it is referring to it as "an unspecified legal action", but we're unable to use it without a clearer statement. The NITV piece does reference the defamation case, but doesn't mention that it is against Georgatos, and suffers from being a primary source as it is Georgatos describing it.
• In regard to the controversies section, these are generally problematic. In this case, though, other than the defamation case, which we can't include, the topics were allegations raised by Georgatos, rather than controversies about Georgatos. It is unclear what significance his role is in them, but they aren't controversies in regard to his biography. One of the things we need to be careful about is giving undue weight to particular issues. To gauge proper weight, we look at how much coverage a person's role has had. IN these cases, there isn't much to say that his role was significant - only that he had expressed an opinion and been quoted on it.

Bilby (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC) - Thank you Bilby. I can't say that I agree with everything but I understand your explanations. I agree the defamation case reference should be removed. But there was other material that I think should have been included. I agree with your view of controversies and better understand. I will try today and over the next several days to include some of the material that I think should be there in the public interest and I will do this in line with what you have explained. Anything that is not in line with Wikipedia protocols you will be able to remove or correct. I would like to get it right here as there are a few other pages I would be interested in providing edits. I do believe that the hunger striker he helped should be mentioned. I do believe his statement in Independent Australia about preferences by the Wikileaks party should be included. I looked at the Julian Assange biography and there are references to what he refers and to his own claims. Hopefully I can edit correctly in line with Wikipedia - Woximp.

What we need to show is why Georgatos' comments regarding Hassanloo are significant. Were his comments raised by any other sources in the media? Can his comments be shown to have had any impact on the situation? - Bilby (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It is important that we establish that Georgatos' reporting on this issue was significant, otherwise it is unclear as to why we're covering it. I've looked, but I can't find anything noting his involvement. Without some indication that his reporting on this was significant, we'll have to pull this from the article. - Bilby (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

(Boozywand9) He was definitely significant. The nationally televised news clips actually state that it was individuals such as Georgatos and the swell of those involved in vigils outside the hospital that saved Hassanloo's life. Georgatos kept his plight in the media. I'll find something additional Bilby. I too am relatively new to Wikipedia but enjoying updating posts. I hope to become adept. With Georgatos I'd like to do an infobox but am struggling how to upload photos. Could someone upload this image of Georgatos from http://thestringer.com.au/all-lives-matter-suicides-the-leading-cause-of-violent-deaths-10304 and I'll work on his infobox among other stuff? I want to concentrate on those people in Aboriginal rights and other human rights people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boozywand9 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll also find references to corroborate statements where noted citation needed because I know these two statements to be true. I follow campaigners in Indigenous human rights. (Boozywand9)

If there is coverage naming him that would be great. :) It would provide the context we need. However, I haven't been able to dig any up. Do you know of anything we can use as a source which credited his role in this?

Unfortunately, we would not be able to use that photograph, as it is protected by copyright. - Bilby (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is a photo that has no copyright and has been widely used of him - http://neoskosmos.com/news/sites/default/files/2012/September/gerry2.jpg - if you can upload this of him into an infobox I'll gather the information for the box and in the next week I'll have the references for the citations needed. (Boozywand9) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boozywand9 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I've covered Georgatos better even though there's more but will leave it at this as it's a fairer public interest representation. He is a huge figure in the background. If someone can upload his image I'll do the info box as I am not that adept yet. I would like to suggest that some of the issues comments at the top of his page could be removed if not all as it's not fair the imputation. That's my thoughts on this. Will work on other bios now. Boozywand9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boozywand9 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Bilby, when will there a resolving of the multiple issues tagged at the head of Georgatos' page? Everything has been cited and items which I think served the public interest that you have been concerned about have been removed by you. Therefore how do we resolve the tags issue? As long as they remain tagged it's pretty much an imputation and slur. If everything is cited where is the issue? A couple of us have worked on his page and it is not true that I have a connection with Georgatos or that I am not neutral. There a number of third party citations. I could add more but I thought you may delete them. I understand the robust nature of the scrutiny Bilby but everything has been responded to as posed by you. Can we remove the multiple issue tags? Boozywand9 (talk • contribs On another point, if we do not report the significance of his actions then something public interest is lost. You've removed these references after first asking for evidence of whether he was significant. Whether PygmyPossum or Woxsimp or myself in demonstrating by third party citation his significant they are generally deleted. I don't get it. I haven't included this one but if it wasn't for Georgatos this minor would "have been forgotten", eg http://enewspaper.thewest.com.au/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=V0FOLzIwMTEvMDcvMDIjQXIwMjgwMA%3D%3D&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom I'd like to better understand your rationale Bilby. Thanks Boozywand9 Bilby, I note that other pages have education and history of individual but we have not included his, and it is not mentioned that he is actually an academic although he is known for his social justice advocacy but isn't it important to include some of this:"In his wardrobe of qualifications is included PhD research in racism, three Masters - a Master of Philosophy, a Master in Social Justice Advocacy, a Master in Human Rights, a Grad Dip in Human Rights Education, a Bachelor of Philosophy, a Bachelor in Australian Indigenous Studies, a Bachelor in Media." Thanks Boozywand9

I've had a look at the material, and removed the advert tag, as it no longer applies. I'm not able to access whether or not the coverage is neutral - if I'd make a call, I'd say that it is written in a way that shows Georgatos in an overly positive light, but that will be for someone who is more aware of his work to judge. The connected contributor needs to stay - the people editing this article all appear to be focused only on him, leading to the conclusion that there may be a problem. There also may not be one, but that is, again, something that needs to be judged in the future. - Bilby (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gerry Georgatos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150407110806/https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/video/watch/26971369/asylum-seeker-hospitalised-after-hunger-strike/ to https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/video/watch/26971369/asylum-seeker-hospitalised-after-hunger-strike/#page1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gerry Georgatos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150224123950/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20130917036 to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20130917036
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117030402/http://www.platformnews.com.au/newsblog/defying-ignorant-politicians-on-the-homeless-in-wa to http://www.platformnews.com.au/newsblog/defying-ignorant-politicians-on-the-homeless-in-wa

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)