Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/Editorial board
New applications to join the editorial board should be made below.
Application of Dr. Subas Chandra Rout
Areas of expertise: Orthopedic Surgery (email = firstname.lastname@example.org)
- Professional - Former Asst. Professor, K.I.M.S. Medical College, Bhubaneswar; Joint Director, Department Of Health, Odisha India
- Publishing - More than 1,000 articles related to Medicine in Wikipedia
- Open - Fiction Writer, edits in Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikitionary, Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata etc.
- Support as Associate Editor, with possible reconsideration as a full Editor after handling an article submission. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support as Associate Editor as above. Diverse experience with multiple wikis. It would also be good to have surgical knowledge represented. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 13:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Question - Although not a prerequisite, could you comment on whether you have any experience with medical publishing (as author, editor or reviewer). 13:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Support strongly as Editorial Board Member. In addition to his medical qualifications [MBBS, MS (Orthopedics) and D. Ortho], his degree in law [LLB] is an add-on that can benefit the board. His administrative role as Joint Director in the Department of Health and Family Welfare of Govt. of Odisha (India) coupled with his position as a member of the Board of Directors at Wiki Project Med Foundation is a bonus. His field (orthopedics and surgery) are still unrepresented on the board of WikiJMed. He has held an academic position. He is a prolific Wikipedian having created and developed more than 1000 medical articles in Odiya single-handedly. I feel that he can definitely add value to the board at WikiJMed. So far, the utilization of Associate Editors with respect to WikiJMed has been rather limited and therefore I would not insist on his inclusion in that role.Diptanshu 💬 15:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Support For sure. Doc James (discuss • contribs) 02:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
This is in continuation to my allegation of discrimination which was archived vide this edit without the issue being addressed. A sensitive issue like discrimination not being addressed by the EiCs does not shine bright on the history of WikiJournals. The EiCs have chosen to be politically correct rather than neutral and righteous. The EiCs, assumably naively, have been more concerned by what the accused might think since they constitue a majority on one or more boards, and because without them the journals might suffer. With a naive intention they have also not taken care of evidence being removed vide this edit and worse still they have silently removed the remnant clue evidence by removing the addendum vide this edit, being naively ignorant that removal of evidence from an ongoing investigation case may amount to a serious offence. They have also not developed a policy on the matter which triggered the removal of evidence (I have independently opened a discussion for the same at Talk:WikiJournal User Group#Public citability of board discussions - feel free to participate).
Where I had left off last time, Markus Pössel had simply affirmed to my allegation just without accepting the label that the same amounted to discrimination. I had ignored the fact that my post once again did not have any respondents. But as one of the members accused of discrimination just provided a fresh evidence of discrimination in their response through this post (as a part of this thread), I felt obliged to reopen the section. To me, using a label (a parameter independent from and not related to the task being performed) to segregate people and prevent them from contributing freely amounts to discrimination. I hope to get an appropriate resolution from the EiCs without which I would need to escalate my concerns to the foundation, something which I would not like to do. Diptanshu 💬 18:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Another member accused of discrimination has presented yet another instance of discriminatory behavior vide this response to an apparently naive message like this. There was a clear learning message in my mail which the accused chose to ignore but he chose to highlight all that he thought to be offensive. He also chose to ignore that another accused member in their earlier response to the same thread might have had some lacunae and that I was trying to help them overcome them with a positive intent. An ideal way to address his issue should have been something like 'No Diptanshu, I do not think that ego was involved in JK's suggestion and you should not assume it.' but instead, his response was in a manner that gets others charged up easily. He assumed that I wanted to send people into a 'rabbit hole' "again" just because I was accused of the same in an earlier independent discussion (the fundamental basis of discrimination against me). In fact, he took the pains to link to the previous communication which landed me in the minority group which I allege to be discriminated against. He did not assume good faith on me due to the same reason. Ironically, in the earlier thread wherein I erred on one parameter, it was the lack of good faith in the responses from certain members that got others charged up and ironically enough I got the blame for the 'lack of good faith'. I am apprehensive that unless the EiCs act, this discriminatory behavior will go on. Diptanshu 💬 23:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- The EiCs are preparing a joint statement on this. In the meantime, I will comment in my personal capacity here. I have read back through the communications log since the initial email that was flagged as inappropriate conduct towards another editor (20 Jul), the incident at WikiMania conference (26 July), and your email to that editor (2 Aug). My assessment is that the reason that you were criticised is not due to political correctness or discrimination because of who you are. It was because of your actions - specifically comments to another editor that were deliberately hostile. Other editorial board members stated that they did not consider them acceptable and your subsequent responses indicated that you did think that they were acceptable. Since that disagreement was not able to be resolved, continued engagement with it is unlikely to be productive. There is no evidence that the resulting protracted argument was due to discrimination rather than editors' disagreement with your conduct. Although you are no longer on the WikiJMed editorial board, like everyone you are free to make suggestions for the project on the discussion pages, but not to email those involved. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)