Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/Editors/Archive 2020

Active discussions

Editorial board application of Angelo Basteris

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
Next steps (add DONE or  Y Done after someone has performed the task):
  1.  Y Done Send a welcome message and confirm their preferred email address - at User talk:AngeloBasteris
  2.  Y Done Copy their information over to editorial board page using the {{WikiJournal editor summary}} template
  3.  Y Done Direct-add them to the WJMboard mailing list (via this link) which will grant them access to the private page only visible to board members
  4.  Y Done Welcome them at the WJMboard mailing list so that they are informed


Editorial board application of Diptanshu Das (thought provoking)

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

Relevant experience:

Professional - Currently working as a pediatric neurologist at Institute of Child Health and Medica Superspecialty Hospital Kolkata.
Publishing - I am a pubmed indexed author. Have made conference presentations (papers as well as posters). Have collaboratively participated in the preparation of the proposed National Open Access Policy of India. I had been an active part of the editorial board of WikiJournal of Medicine till WikiJournal developed growth pangs. At Wiki.J.Med my contributions included attempts to popularize it. I have played a role in preparing grant proposals like this and this and have been the primary author of the initial version of Code of Conduct for WikiJournal participants. I had 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. I have reviewed an article in Wiki.J.Med and have acted as the peer review coordinator for another two.
Open - I am a believer and enthusiast of open/free knowledge movement and culture. I have been an active Wikipedian since 2008 (with a registered account, although I edited earlier without a registering), counting among the top 5000 contributors, have more than 20,000 edits (Veteran Editor II), ranked 1111 on the list of most-active Wikipedians by number of "recent" edits (as of September 2013), and am a new page reviewer. I have worked significantly with improvement of the referencing and bibliography of medical articles on Wikipedia, usually helping in improving stub, start and C class articles. I have also been a Wikidata enthusiast and have contributed the Commons. My contribution has been primarily to medical articles on English Wikipedia and have been in the top 300 medical editors consistently over the last 5 years till 2017, ranking as the 13th Top medical contributor of 2017. For reasons that may be known to this community and courtesy some well wishers of the Wikimedia movement, my wiki involvement dropped to near zero, sometime in 2018. In 2019 I was elected as a Board Member of Wikipedia Medicine (also known as Wiki Project Med) where I have administrative roles. I am 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 💬 08:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

A few things to add:

  • Wikimedia has Founding principles, WikiJournal does not. Without that in place, the direction of all the WikiJournals can never be aligned. WikiJournal started with WJM. Since modern medicine is evidence based and so is scientific academic publication, a scientific methodology should be considered intrinsic to all WikiJournals. This virtue is not innate to the Wikimedia movement. The transition from a Wikipedian community to an academic community will need a lot of redefinement which are currently lacking. If accepted, I would be pushing for them and not everybody will like that. It is also to be remembered that streams outside the purview of science might not have a scientific orientation and we might need to align them. They might not like it. So, what is the way forward? To me it is loud and clear, irrespective of others like that. I would not like a WikiJournal of 'Astrology' to be in place. Would you? You decide. Diptanshu 💬 08:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I would be pushing for community policies at a number of places (thus limiting freedom, people would not be able to get way with anything and everything). I would be limiting the capacity of certain individuals to induce bias through the use of connotations, pushing for neutrality at every step (for example the terms 'guest' and 'intruder' generate strikingly different reactions while referring to a particular person) while I also push for verifiability and validity of references. Diptanshu 💬 08:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Scientific thinking strongly limits the valid options one has at a given point. Purposefulness and objectivity limit it even further. I choose this path. Thus, I would be drastically limiting the 'freedom of opinion' that people would like to have and I would be uncompromising in this regard. I would be a serious threat to the people who would like to have the freedom of voting 2+2=22. Nevertheless, if validity is present, I would never block it, even if it is adverse to me. Diptanshu 💬 08:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Earlier, somebody alleged that I had labelled somebody as stupid. The fact was that I had labelled an act as stupid and with complete nobility has tried to prevent them from committing that act. Nobody from the WikiJournal community was bothered to check the validity of the statement and whether the act was indeed stupid. Yet, that allegation became the basis of people voting for my removal. Incidentally, on a Wikimedia platform (which promotes openness), lack of openness and lack of validation helped chaos prevail. If I am accepted, I would try to precisely define what is confidential, and why. Adding exception to only that, I would strive to apply free licensing to the discussion boards of the editorial boards. Diptanshu 💬 08:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Somehow I am very attached to evidence base, research and validity. I am an extremely rational and logical person and am always amenable to reason. However, scientific thinking is not innate to humankind and is actually a learned behaviour. In a scientific forum, we are limited by validity. What we say in-promptu might often lack validity, but then, validity check should always be open with the scope of retration of invalid statements. There needs to be something objective on which logic and reasoning in a particular scenario is based. These are not expected to be self-obvious and therefore need to be cited along. In practically anything I do, I try to ensure validity. I usually try to include my reasoning and its evidence base along. Since, WikiJournal discussions are either in the form of group emails, not many people may have interest in reading my 'research reports' and they might find my emails to be 'un'necessarily long. Moreover, unless nodal parts are marked at every step, it becomes hard to identify logical dichotomy and to exclude invalid logic. Diptanshu 💬 08:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Lack of validity check is the key to the propagation of fake news on social media platforms. WikiJournal message boards and the way people interact there has more resemblence to social media than people might acknowlege. Mob dynamics, mob lynchings and trolls can definitely take a lead in either places. Steps to curb that need to be in place but are absent. I had tried hard to establish a 'Code of Conduct' which is yet to be ratified (in fact, I would not have applied for joining if the CoC had already been implemented by now). Thomas's version was better than mine in a number of aspects. If accepted, I would be pushing for it irrespective of whether you like it, and I would not stop there. Diptanshu 💬 08:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • If I am accepted, I would assert on as much openness as possible. This can seriously jeopardise interests of many including pseudointellectuals and hypocrites, if any. I have a focus of neutrality and elimination of bias. Those who feel that they can suffer from this, are welcome to vote against my acceptance. Diptanshu 💬 08:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia flourished because the people got plausible deniability by the virtue of their usernames not being indicative of their real identities. But a stark contrast exists with respect to scientific or academic publication wherein accountability needs to be there at every step. With the experiment called WikiJournal, the people involved are simply oblivious about how to make a seamless transition. I feel that I have a role to play in this aspect. Furthermore, it needs to be borne in mind that in the scientific world, public vote does not imply validity. Galileo, Copernicus, all lacked public support and faced public criticism, but it would have been very improper if they would have chosen the path of popular opinion. Wikimedia communities are supposedly democratic. The members should know where evidence comes before public opinion. I could perhaps be regarded as a threat because I do not consider public opinion to be necessarily correct, and I rather choose validity as my determinant. WikiJournal being an academic forum with participants elected supposedly based on credentials, would have an obligation toward epistocracy where only the informed can vote on a particular issue, rather than a standard democracy where people are free to vote without any regard for evidence. Voting based on emotion and lack of information can be disastrous. Diptanshu 💬 08:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Certain people would like to ask how I have changed after my having to leave last time. I would like to mention that I change continously, taking lesson from each step. I evolve dramatically, and believe me, I am rational all through. I can say, that I have become much more methodical and discrete (as can be witnessed from this write up). The question is whether this evolution is going to be in their interest, or against. I can assure that my evolution is likely to be completely in favour of the Wikimedia movement and the objectives of WikiJournal. Diptanshu 💬 08:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The current members think that WikiJournal is ready to become a sister project. I think that it is not even half ready. If you ask me whether it should, my answer is a definite affirmative. But even if it is granted the status, I do not think it is prepared for the same. I would be pushing for a methodical transition. I would not really care if 'volunteer' board members are keen to put in the requisite time and resources for that. For me the way forward is clear. So, if you are keen on preserving your freedom of staying casual, please do not vote for me. Running a journal, or more importantly, a journal publishing house, is serious matter and there needs to be accountability at every step. Vote me in only if you are ready for it. Diptanshu 💬 08:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • My patients unanimously assert that I am a very friendly and cooperative person, and most importantly a good human being and I can vouch that they are right. Feel free to check the testimonials they have left for me. I am sure that the experience of WJM board members who have worked with me, is no different. I like to define a problem in solvable terms, and methodically work toward its resolution. On the other hand, in case of defining the way forward, one has to be 'insightful' and I believe that I am. I do not have any regard for 'public opinion' or 'personal gains' in this regard. I would just execute things the way they should be. That I have no concern of being popular and that I am not committed to protecting my own interests, makes be a rather difficult person. I assure that I would never be hurtful or vindictive, nevertheless, I would not show any tolerance to people who actually are. I would always be amenable to reason, but would grossly limit the options for people to get away with excuses, lies, fake news. I am a person of integrity and am a myth buster, eliminating bias at every step. Diptanshu 💬 08:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • What was once Michael's baby, needs to grow beyond boundaries. WikiJournal has an obligation of establishing diamond open access and a signficant model in publishing. There is a long way to go before this truly gets implemented. There are scalability issues involved. A lot of educated and insightful discussion needs to go into it. Leadership cannot be outsourced. I feel that I have an important role to play in this aspect. Diptanshu 💬 08:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not the standard way an application to join the WikiJournal boards is made. I am clearly aware of that. I could have omitted all the additional points. I could have saved your time (and mine). I am not committed to saving your time (as harsh as it may seem). I am committed to letting people make an informed decision. If you think that it is not worth it, please do not vote me in. If you do, I have already clarified my stance. I could have chosen a softer tone. I did not do that on purpose. If you think my communications should be shorter, please show me a model alternative and I would be happy to adapt it. Finally, let me assure you that I would be the friendly person I always am. Diptanshu 💬 08:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  •   Oppose You were previously a board member and left after a long dispute in which we repeatedly asked you to make shorter comments. I see above no evidence that the situation has improved. I think you can be of great help to WikiJournal or Wikimedia in general, but not necessarily as a board member. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Steven Fruitsmaak, in order to create an impression anybody would have avoided what could lower the chance of being accepted. I did just the opposite. Why? Give it a thought. We wish for many things. But do we need to get all of them? Here you are not getting what you asked for. But you are also getting a lot many other things that you did not ask for. You are not happy. That is human nature. But what is more important, convenience or validity check. Give it a thought. Imagine that I had eliminated what you were supposed to react against. In fact, don't you think that it was rather easy for me to put up a likable face with which I would have easily been accepted? My nature would have remained exactly the same as it actually is. If you were to accept me then, would you have blundered? Probably yes. In that case, are you not seeking the wrong thing? Give it a thought. Furthermore, I have clearly delineated some things that needs to be changed with respect to WikiJournal. Is there a difference between a board member vs a non-board member trying to bring in a desirable change? There is. There is a difference in acceptance. If there isn't why are board discussions sealed off from non-board members? What exactly could a non-board member do to get a CoC implemented or to get confidentiality issues defined while making other things open? Not much probably. On the other hand, it would have been much easier for me to steer things positively if I were to become a board member. But I chose the dubious path on purpose. I wanted to provoke thought. I am equally ok with being rejected or getting accepted. But I want you people to do the right thing. There are a number of places that is not happening and people are ok with shrugging dirt under the carpet. There is much you need to think about. So, think again. I am ok with whatever you decide. Diptanshu 💬 18:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I find the approach taken in the application somewhat combative, judgmental and with little to suggest that you would be a team player; you clearly have terrific Wiki skills but I do not feel that you fit the current team. Rwatson1955 (discusscontribs) 14:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Rwatson1955, I am sorry that you find my approach to be combative. But conditions apply. I am and have always been a team player. But similar to the manner that you have correctly opposed what is unacceptable, I have said that I would not be tolerant to what is unacceptable. There is evidence that WikiJournal has been tolerant to what is unacceptable and I would not be supportive of such things. In that sense we are on the same boat. Talking about being judgmental, let me suggest that I am rational. You judged me to exhibit unacceptable qualities. But were you judgmental? Think again. We are on the same boat. I crafted the situation to provoke thoughts. But please understand that there is a catch. You see, if all I wanted was to get into the board, anyone can guess, how to present ownself as attractive. Think again. I would respect your decision, no matter what. Diptanshu 💬 18:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like the ideas about growing the journal and formalizing processes. I believe there is a lot of value in avoiding group think.

The potential impact of these strengths and contributions is much diminished by the style of communication. The editorial board is a distributed team, working without the benefit of long shared history or personal bonds, and coming from very different disciplines. All of these challenges make considerations of chemistry and courtesy important, too.

I like the ideas; I am not sure that the gains outweigh the costs in terms of time and stress if there is not compromise on style. It is not an auspicious start in tone or length, but there are good points. I will wait for more data. Eyoungstrom (discusscontribs) 04:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Eyoungstrom, I appreciate your style of pointing out what is unacceptable. That is exactly how it should be. Earlier somebody had marked some activity of mine as uncivil. The fact is that the very style of that pointing out was uncivil in itself. And, they got away with it. In my communication style I have included unacceptable styles on purpose. I would like clear norms on what is acceptable and what is not. Believe me, I have studied mass psychology quite much in the intervening year to understand how things happen and why. I have found striking similarities in the way how WikiJournal communities work and how social media works. I have also learned that communities pull together really well in times of crisis. That is the reason for me to try this method. Its an experiment that I would like to work out. WJM has led to the establishment of WikiJournal concept. I believe that they have the scientific orientation that is needed. But there is more orientation needed in order to make WikiJournal scalable. Currently, bad people can mess up with the entire model. I hope you would understand. It is not about me walking the path of constructive development. Teamwork is the way to proceed. It does not matter whether you take me along. But without a crisis situation at hand I am not sure whether the team would be keen to work along the good points that you identify. Diptanshu 💬 13:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment: For now, I would be exhibiting dual personality. I would model a rogue and would seek policies that would limit the scope of anyone acting in that way. In the other scenario I would be the friendly person always amenable to reason, that I actually am. In either case, rest assured, what I say would be valid and verifiable. I would be acting in ways you might not be able to predict. Kindly bear with me. Diptanshu 💬 13:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment: I would like the members of WJM team answer my query at meta:Proposing a new WikiJournal - Guidelines? before I post it on the user group. Take two parallel assumptions 1) I am what I claim in the application below 2) I am rogue. In either case, you need to act upon the issue I have delineated on the meta talk page. To be able to block a rogue, you need to define the characteristics needed to identify them. I seek action in this regard. Diptanshu 💬 13:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC) updated Diptanshu 💬 13:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There are no doubts you contributed a lot to WJM and Wikipedia, and for what I could learn about your past experience as a board member, you may even have been victim of some injustice. In addition, I find some of your ideas very valuable. But unfortunately, my impression is that there is no possible compromise between all or nothing. Thus I quote you on "So, if you are keen on preserving your freedom of staying casual, please do not vote for me". (Of course, "casual" has many meanings - I believe and aim at staying casual as board member, while of course ensuring due diligence and professionality) Angelo Basteris (Reply) 09:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Angelo Basteris your tone is exactly in lines with Wikimedia standards, exactly how it should be. When you talk about something as injustice, you are essentially taking an individual perspective. I, on the other hand, am more concerned from a community perspective. It does not matter that the supposed injustice happened with me. What matters is that it should not happen ever with anybody. For that, it needs to be defined what is unacceptable and how to deal with it. What I have felt is that WikiJournal currently lacks proper methodology to deal with rogues. Since I am not bothered about being accepted into the board, I thought that I could afford to model a rogue that needs to be dealt with. I am actually going to set up a number of new WikiJournals and would also gather the teams required for their functionality. If anybody else does it, without founding principles and community standards in place, believe me, it would be the road to chaos and I am quite certain that the WikiJournal community would be clueless when an actual crisis arises. I would like to block this possibility and am working towards it. I could somehow not get what you meant by freedom of staying casual. My bad. Diptanshu 💬 10:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Angelo Basteris, here is what I was talking about: meta:Talk:WikiJournal#Proposing a new WikiJournal - Guidelines? Diptanshu 💬 10:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment: @Mikael Häggström, Evolution and evolvability, and Fransplace:: I would love to see a definite mark of your opposition or support along with the reason you would like to state. I would really be glad if you put your inputs on both the applications. Of course you don't have any obligation to do so, but nevertheless. Diptanshu 💬 10:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Although often full of useful (and even constructive) ideas, the applicant's problematic behaviours consistently outweigh these positives, and their interpersonal interactions with others is a liability. Their past attitude and actions towards other community members was damaging, and they still insist that the cause of their dismissal was the actions of others. In general they have shown a lack of awareness of their actions and how they affect others. Despite words that they are a team player, cooperative, and a good human being, they have also repeatedly failed to constructively change their behaviour and have typically escalated it in stead. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo), thanks for your inputs. I feel that there is a fundamental mix up. Behaviours of individuals affecting that of others is a two way process. I have previously acknowledged and still acknowledge that there were problematic components in my behaviour. But that does not give license for others to act in problematic manners. That happened but there was no acknowledgement for the same. For example, if you look neutrally, the issue regarding my calling somebody stupid was spurious. I never did that. Most often people go by emotions and not logic. Somebody panicked about something that did not happen, while others never cared to verify. There were people who induced bias. Others fell for it. Nobody here showed any awareness about how their behaviour may affect others (me in this case). My protest is against that.
If you go parameter wise through each of the bullet points, I not sure how may points for improvement you can find. If you can, and if you can point them out specifically, and if the points are valid, I would be happy to improvise and believe me, it would be instantaneous. I invite you for the same. Acceptance into the board does not matter to me. Furthermore, if you acknowledge that it is full of useful and constructive ideas, act upon them. I believe that I know the operations of WikiJournals inside out. There are a lot of things that need fixing. People are simply not bothered to have a look. I long for those to be fixed. To me it simply does not matter whether I am in the board. Moreover, I no longer have a face to save. You do. In the past, I have felt sad when at times the EiCs did not act the way they should have, and seemed more concerned saving their face and that of the community at large, else, structures could have crumbled.
It is practically a no-brainer about what face to put up to seem acceptable to others. I could have easily gone by that and believe me, others would have not known whether it is genuine. This creates a paradox. I point to this exact paradox, not really bothering about acceptance. I know that people at WikiJournals are more eager to accept things at face value without any eagerness to delve deeper. To me this is of serious concern if you look at a professional platform like journal publication. If you notice, I have put up an apparently intolerant face. But if you look further, my intolerance is conditional and selectively targetted toward what is unsupportable. Tell me that they are supportable, or tell me that one should be tolerant toward them, I would really be happy if you do that, and I would be glad to comply.
Talking about being a good human being, do not take my word, check what others have to say. I have provided the link and have not made it up. They have said that unanimously. So, if your perception does not match, perhaps, just perhaps, there is some aspect that you are failing to see. I completely acknowledge that my application seems desperate. But that is because without that I do not see the slightest indication that things could change.
The summary is that I am very agile and would modify myself wherever there is a valid reason for the same. I see a paucity of that in the behaviours of others. Ensure that, and I assure you that you would find me the softest person that you can encounter. Diptanshu 💬 11:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
My purpose is to induce a lot of thinking (parametrically). But unfortunately, people are usually more likely to jump to conclusions, without caring to think deep. To me that is perplexing. And, even if I can set them thinking and they are essentially in a fix, they do not remain obliged to change their alignment. To me that is frustrating. I feel that the situation needs to change. If that actually happens, it is essentially a teamwork. I am not sure whether I can do it by placing myself at the front; the team is not aligned enough. Just checking out whether I can make it happen by placing myself on the opposite. Else, who would place ownself as a scapegoat? I did. Diptanshu 💬 11:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Result: Not elected

I agree with the votes above. Although Diptanshu does come with thoughtful ideas, there has been, and continues to be, a combative tone that has a very negative impact on the community that keep the journal going. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Mikael, I do not know if you needed to close the vote this fast. You see, it was never about getting elected. It was about inducing a thought about things people do not bother to think about. If somebody from some government says 'we would not show any tolerance to terrorism or violence (or something bad)' would you term it as intolerant behaviour? I doubt. You see, in my application I have taken a combative tone and I have done it on purpose. I know that people would generalise. If you look carefully, the tone is directed at things that should not be the way they are (like terrorism or violence, in the given example). If you look at my responses, do you think that my tone is combative. If the two tones do not match and if the people are generalising wrongly, aren't they actually at fault? Paradoxical situation. Look at my tone in the responses, do you see any aggression? I don't think so. Yet, people choose the label that is commonly pick up, without really needing an in-depth look. They get to be judgmental. Rwatson1955 and others had the right to be judgmental and oppose what is unacceptable. They did the right thing. Yet I do not have the right because I have said it out loud. Is this how it should be? Give it a thought. Take the example of Steven Fruitsmaak who has validly pointed to the requirement of concise communications for easy brush-through. But when given a choice between convenience or validity check, the answer should be rather obvious. Yet, in action people get to do the reverse. Furthermore, despite remaining in a professional position of a board member, they do not need to answer for what they do or say. That is not how it should be. Things need to change. Things will not change if I ask for. They will change if the thought-leaders get thinking deeply. Within this short span if I can point out so many things that need to be fixed, curiously enough, only my actions get tagged for correction. Mikael Häggström, I would really appreciate if you remove the closure and keep the discussion going. More importantly, I would really be glad if you, Thomas and a handful of others who have been there throughout, take steps corrective actions where needed. Once again, it was never about getting elected. It was about getting a thought process flowing. I am not imposing anything. I want you all to find out what needs to be fixed, and to act accordingly. But without the thought process, you can't do it. Diptanshu 💬 04:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Editorial board application of Diptanshu Das

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

Relevant experience:

Professional - Currently working as a pediatric neurologist at Institute of Child Health and Medica Superspecialty Hospital Kolkata.
Publishing - I am a pubmed indexed author. Have made conference presentations (papers as well as posters). Have collaboratively participated in the preparation of the proposed National Open Access Policy of India. I had been an active part of the editorial board of WikiJournal of Medicine till WikiJournal developed growth pangs. At Wiki.J.Med my contributions included attempts to popularize it. I have played a role in preparing grant proposals like this and this and have been the primary author of the initial version of Code of Conduct for WikiJournal participants. I had 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. I have reviewed an article in Wiki.J.Med and have acted as the peer review coordinator for another two.
Open - I am a believer and enthusiast of open/free knowledge movement and culture. I have been an active Wikipedian since 2008 (with a registered account, although I edited earlier without a registering), counting among the top 5000 contributors, have more than 20,000 edits (Veteran Editor II), ranked 1111 on the list of most-active Wikipedians by number of "recent" edits (as of September 2013), and am a new page reviewer. I have worked significantly with improvement of the referencing and bibliography of medical articles on Wikipedia, usually helping in improving stub, start and C class articles. I have also been a Wikidata enthusiast and have contributed the Commons. My contribution has been primarily to medical articles on English Wikipedia and have been in the top 300 medical editors consistently over the last 5 years till 2017, ranking as the 13th Top medical contributor of 2017 In 2019 I was elected as a Board Member of Wikipedia Medicine (also known as Wiki Project Med) where I have administrative roles. I am 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 💬 08:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional note: Please consider this application to be independent of the other one. Please vote independently in the two applications. I can assure you that I am a team player and know how to write short emails. I am a lovable person and I am the person that I have always been. I often take unconventional paths and I think that you would love me for that. If you have any queries, do not hesitate to ask. I will be happy to answer. Earnest request: please do not mix the two applications and vote independently in the two. Diptanshu 💬 03:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Return to "WikiJournal of Medicine/Editors/Archive 2020" page.