Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2014–2018

Discussions may also take place at the
public mailing list

Board member re-elections[edit]

As per the bylaws of WikiJMed "Editorial Board Members shall serve four-year terms. There is no limit to the number of terms any individual Editorial Board Member may serve." [1]
In the editorial board of WikiJMed [2], there are 3 members whose current term ends on January 1, 2019: Mikael Häggström (myself), Gwinyai Masukume (Assistant editor-in-chief) and Lisa Kipersztok.
I think an appropriate first step in a re-election is for the person to actively apply for it. I therefore now add myself below, and advise the other two to do the same if interested in continuing at the positions. I am sure many participants know us pretty well already, but just in case, we can re-introduce ourselves too, preferably by the template as per below. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 18:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, as per the bylaws, Eligible voters for Editorial Board Member elections are:
(a) Current Editorial Board Members.
(b) Peer reviewers of Wiki.J.Med. who have completed at least one peer review.
(c) Editors with at least 30 edits to Wiki.J.Med. pages.
(d) Not an individual voting for herself/himself.

Mikael Häggström[edit]

Mikael Häggström M.D. (website)
Areas of expertise: Medicine, radiology

Relevant experience:

Professional - Currently a resident physician at the radiology department at the NU Hospital Group
Publishing - I am the creator and editor-in-chief of WikiJournal of Medicine, the first WikiJournal. I also have main responsibility for the financials of WikiJournal, and play a key role in domain and email administrations.
Open - As per above

I confirm that I will act in accordance with the policies of the WikiJournal of Medicine. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 18:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Votes and comments
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Mikael has been thoughtful a diligent in his work with WikiJMed, and has great technical aptitude for the ancillary technical elements (emails, web addresses, issn & crossref registrations etc). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Mikael founded the WikiJournal of Medicine. Over the past four or so years two new journals have been added to what is now a successful Family. Besides this, his images which illustrate many Wikipedia pages make Mikael one of the most globally influential Physicians of our times. In my view, time permitting, him remaining at the helm would be apt. Ear-phone (discusscontribs) 15:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Mikael has done a great job and I don't see a better suited candidate at the moment. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support All seems well with this journal. Keep up the good work!--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support strongly - Without Mikael the project could not have thrived. We would be ever indebted for his contributions. Diptanshu 💬 17:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Doc James (discusscontribs) 16:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Result: Re-elected, judging by the votes. Thanks to all of you for your continued support! Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 03:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Gwinyai Masukume[edit]

Gwinyai Masukume MB ChB, Dip Obst, MSc
Areas of expertise: Medicine, Obstetrics, Epidemiology

Relevant experience:

Professional - I am currently a doctoral researcher. Milestones related to Wikimedia scholarly activity include initiating both academic and lay audience articles e.g. in the Lancet Global Health, STAT and several others. I have co-authored/authored 25 PubMed indexed articles including some in the world's leading journals like the Lancet and BMJ
Publishing - I was on the founding board of the WikiJournal of Medicine, the first WikiJournal. I am also the Assistant editor-in-chief with responsibilities ranging from strategy, indexing, peer review, social media engagement, compiling and analysing metrics among others.
Open - As above

I confirm that I will act in accordance with the policies of the WikiJournal of Medicine. Ear-phone (discusscontribs) 23:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Votes and comments
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I look forward to another term of highly beneficial contributions from you. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Gwinyai has been a great contributor to the project, bringing both ideas and action to the board. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Gwinyai is a great asset to the Ed board. He is very critical which helps keep everyone sharp. On the other hand sometimes you should watch that this doesn't run out of hand, but until now we haven't had any problems like that so I am reassured. Also a less positive aspect is your refraining from much on-wiki editing. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The team seems on track --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support strongly - He has been a great team mate and his insights will continue to be of immense value to the project. Diptanshu 💬 17:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Doc James (discusscontribs) 16:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Result: Re-elected. I'm delighted to have you for a second term, Gwinyai! Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 03:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Editor-in-chief and assistant elections[edit]

Similarly to the previous section, Gwinyai Masukume and I are approaching the end of our terms as Assistant editor-in-chief and Editor-in-chief, respectively. I again re-apply as a candidate, although mainly as Assistant editor-in-chief, and I want all those who are interested to make similar applications. As per the bylaws, "The Assistant to the Editor-in-chief is appointed by consensus in the Editorial Board", but I welcome input from all participants.

Mikael Häggström - as Assistant editor-in-chief[edit]

Applying mainly for Assistant editor-in-chief. I am happy to continue contributing as part of the editorial board, but I repeatedly find myself having too little time to make the project evolve and expand. I hardly have enough time to manage the current upcoming articles. I therefore think the project will be better off with someone who does have more time, and I will be happy to be there as Assistant editor-in-chief to guide whoever gets the Editor-in-chief position. I am also happy to continue my responsibilities for the financials, Internet domains and emails of WikiJournal. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 18:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Mikael Häggström M.D. (website)
Areas of expertise: Medicine, radiology

Relevant experience:

Professional - Currently a resident physician at the radiology department at the NU Hospital Group
Publishing - I am the creator and editor-in-chief of WikiJournal of Medicine, the first WikiJournal. I also have main responsibility for the financials of WikiJournal, and play a key role in domain and email administrations.
Open - As per above

I confirm that I will act in accordance with the policies of the WikiJournal of Medicine. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 18:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Votes and comments
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mikael has been instrumental to the project. He does a huge amount of work and I can understand wanting to devolve some duties. I'd be happy to seem him as either EiC or assistant EiC. 'd also support having several EiCs with remit over particular duties of the EiC e.g.: 1) Be notified by email of new article submissions, peer review submissions, and inquiries to contact@wikijsci.org. 2) Contacting potential authors. 3) Monitor the Wikipedia embassy page for submissions. 4) Monitor for new board member and associate editor applications. 5) Check in with peer review coordinators about progress and hurdles in peer review invitations. 6) Liaise with the technical editor if (the budget passes). 7) Assist in annual financial application. 8) Assist in writing annual reports. 9) Assist in indexing service applications. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in whichever role you see yourself fit. I myself also find myself with almost zero time available for this project. On the other hand I don't see anyone else able to take over from you, therefore I would beg on my bare knees that you continue as EiC ! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per above comments --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support strongly - I would have loved to see him continue in the existing post. I really hope that he reconsiders himself for the role of EiC. However, I would support him for the role of assistant EiC if that is what he is willing to run for. Diptanshu 💬 17:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Doc James (discusscontribs) 16:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Diptanshu Das[edit]

Applying for Editor-in-chief. I would not have considered applying for the position had there been any other applicant. I would gladly step down from my candidature if Mikael, Thomas or anybody else from the active set of current board members of Wiki.J.Med offers their candidature. The dynamics of interaction in the board of Wiki.J.Med has been inspiring and I would like that to continue. I am not sure if it would remain the same in case there is a new external candidate.

Diptanshu Das MBBS, MHSc (clinical child development), MD (pediatric neurology), PDCR, PGPN, IPPN (website)
Areas of expertise: Medicine, Pediatrics, Pediatric neurology, Neonatology, Clinical research

Relevant experience:

Professional - Currently working as a pediatric neurologist at Institute of Neurosciences Kolkata.
Publishing - Had been an active part of the editorial board of WikiJournal of Medicine. Has collaboratively contributed to a few external publications pertaining to Wikipedia and WikiJournal/WikiJournal of Medicine. Have authored a chapter on 'Neurodevelopmental follow-up in high risk babies' in a book that is still in press. Have reviewed an article in Wiki.J.Med. Currently acting as a peer review coordinator for a couple of submissions to Wiki.J.Med. Have authored the proposed Code of conduct document still to be considered by the board. Have authored articles listed by pubmed. Have made conference presentations (papers as well as posters). Have collaboratively participated in the preparation of the proposed National Open Access Policy of India.
Open - An active Wikipedian since 2008. A believer and enthusiast of open/free knowledge movement and culture. A member of working group of Open Access India. Have been a participant and presenter at multiple Open Access conferences. Have collaboratively participated in the preparation of the proposed National Open Access Policy of India. Have a couple of social entrepreneurship projects in the pipeline, projects that help in collaboratively innovating and to promote scientific understanding. In the concept stage of authoring a book on open culture.

I confirm that I will act in accordance with the policies of the WikiJournal of Medicine. Diptanshu 💬 18:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Votes and comments
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support strongly - I suppose he is the fittest candidate. Subas Chandra Rout (discusscontribs) 07:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - With regret. I think that Diptanshu has an excellent grasp of the technicalities of OA journals. However the EiC role also involves leadership tasks and working with others that he has sometimes struggled with. The WikiJournal editorial communities come from diverse cultures and can devote very varied amounts of time - from a 1-100 hours per quarter. During the events that lead to his dismissal, he struggled to see interactions from others' point of view. Before I could support him re-joining the editorial board, I would want to know what he thinks went wrong in the events that lead to his dismissal, what he has learnt and what he would do differently. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thomas, following a rash attitude of mine, a chain of events had followed. I must admit that I was overwhelmed at the hostile nature of responses that followed, and that my further reactions went out of proportion as I gasped for a friendlier environment which I failed to generate. I failed to understand why people needed to be hostile to a person who is and asserts that he is amenable to reason. I must admit that I held myself high on moral/ethical values and held those values above community approval. I am not diplomatic and am lured by titles. So, in response to what I found not-likable, I launched a second attack to assert the points that I wanted to assert. I was aware that it could lead to my dismissal and it did. Eventually I went through the Five Stages of Grief from denial to acceptance. The chain of events taught me a number of things. It helped me took at things from different perspectives and to map them with the possible outcomes. More importantly, earlier, I did not bother to become more likable, possibly because I did not know the way. I have grown calmer and accepting and now know much better how to convey a point without offending people and having them by my side. This can only happen if they feel reassured and not threatened. I believe that with time I mature further in this aspect. The EiC position is indeed a position of leadership. It needs people to find me likable and respectable. I believe that I would be able to regain their trust, and yours.
I must admit that the journey since the unfortunate chain of events has been interesting and enlightening. It has made me introspect and understand human behavior better. There is so much I sincerely have gained from it. It has helped me become a better person in real life. Believe me or not, I have grown within myself all the attributes I have mentioned in the Code of conduct document that I have prepared. I sincerely believe that to be the direction where people should be headed. It is not out of an urge to teach others a lesson. I have grown over it. I understand that people yield better if they can find things appealing and convincing rather than if they feel cornered. I believe that now I can convey my points better without being disruptive. Rest assured that my future interactions would lack aggression in any form. I sincerely believe that people would be able to sense the genuineness in my comments and would respond in affirmative.
I am still to pick up an important essential attribute that Laurent pointed had rightly pointed out, the importance of being concise. I hope to acquire that in the near future.
Thomas, I would sincerely hope that I would be able to regain your trust and that your vote changes in my support in light of the changes that I have undergone. Your apprehension about my ability work with others is justified but rest assured that you need not worry about it any more. In case you are not convinced, I would respect it fully and would have no issues with it. In fact, that would make me introspect further on the aspects I still need to develop or improve. Diptanshu 💬 13:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Thomas, would you please be kind enough to watch the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3IZxHFGFGI which beautifully describes a situation analogous to the situation that led to my dismissal. Indeed I have struggled to see interactions from others' point of view as in the expression of 2+2=22. I am only ready to accept things that are valid. The folk who can hardly dedicate any resources in the best interest of the journal felt irritated that their valuable time was being wasted reading my protest to the alternative way of thinking that was being offered. Rather than mindless expressions of irritation, I urged on discussions of validity. Not a word was spoken on it. I am not fine with that. I prefer to be parametric and discrete rather than expressing opinions of subjective nature. Please care to express if you are fine with the alternative math wherein 2+2=22. Not accepting this solution led to my dismissal. The people who were not happy about my not gulping down this solution got to vote me out. Another good fella felt obliged not to go against the flow. In fact that was the only vote I counted valid. Never mind! Anyway, Thomas, do care to express what stance you would like to personally have on the 2+2=22 situation without being diplomatic. Diptanshu 💬 19:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Following the recent chain of events as you describe, I do not see that your position can be broadly accepted. Also I think your above answer shows you need still more time to learn to be more concise. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I have expressed earlier that titles do not interest me. I have nothing to personally gain from the entire stuff. Rather, WikiJournal could have benefited from my insights if you people would have been able to think above your personal prejudices. I never accepted to be a candidate in the first place. The only reason that I applied was because there is no befitting candidate for EiC of WJM. It is public opinion is not supposed to shift in my favor anytime soon and by then WikiJournal would have lost much. Diptanshu 💬 19:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
My previous answer also shows that I clearly understand the significance of being concise and that I have it on my priority list. My response could also have conveyed that in the given situation the cons of being concise might have outweighed the pros of the same and that I might not actually be lacking the capacity to be concise. Diptanshu 💬 19:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Mikael Häggström - as Editor-in-chief[edit]

Due to the the current absence of an alternative candidate that we all can agree on, I should now formally make an application as continuing as editor-in-chief as well (although current bylaws state that "consensus" in the board is enough), taking the exact same material as above:

Mikael Häggström M.D. (website)
Areas of expertise: Medicine, radiology

Relevant experience:

Professional - Currently a resident physician at the radiology department at the NU Hospital Group
Publishing - I am the creator and editor-in-chief of WikiJournal of Medicine, the first WikiJournal. I also have main responsibility for the financials of WikiJournal, and play a key role in domain and email administrations.
Open - As per above

I confirm that I will act in accordance with the policies of the WikiJournal of Medicine. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 03:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I will, however, work on outsourcing editor-in-chief tasks to other journal participants, since I find myself repeatedly not being able to perform them all myself in a timely manner. Today, I added a template at the top of the application pages for new editorial board members, summarizing the procedure: Talk:WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Editorial_board. I've also created a template, {{subst:WikiJournal accepted board member}}, that is to be copy-pasted to the bottom of each accepted application, creating a list of the technical tasks that need to be done for getting a new board member aboard, so that these tasks can be distributed among board members.
Those of you who have supported before may simply make a brief support mark if you still agree. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 03:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for all previous reasons. As part of distributing tasks, I shall volunteer to send the notification emails for new article submissions, peer review submissions and editor applications. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Absolutely!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Mikael remains worthy as always. However, leadership cannot be outsourced. A true leader ensures the best output from others in the most cordial way while infusing a healthy culture in the process. This remains reserved for the visionary. Other editorial tasks remain anyway under the purview of other editorial board members anyway. So I do not really understand that what exactly is to be outsourced. Diptanshu 💬 13:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - --Netha Hussain (discusscontribs) 12:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)