My areas of interest in Wikipedia are (1) the Ref Desks for Humanities, Language and Miscellaneous; (2) Random Articles in English requiring copy editing and (3) interesting facts, suppositions and opinions, while trying to be clear about the difference.
Areas of Ignorance
Thanks to Mr.98 for the idea that others should be warned about areas where we are not to be trusted to answer questions without a reference (and sometimes even with one) on the Ref Desks. My list gets longer as I age, part of which is due to memory loss and part to growing self-awareness: mathematics, chemistry, physics, astronomy, astrology, television (shows less than 20 years old, stars less than 60 years old, and anything at all about production), music written in the past 20 years, music composition and theory, computers (hardware and most software), mechanics, electronics, manufacturing, history (if I haven't lived it, and even some that I have), languages (except for a basic competence in English, a small vocabulary in French and smaller still in Spanish), religion (except for some rituals from Christianity and Judaism), numismatics, philately, philosophy (as a formal subject of study), sports (aside from general rules of hockey, baseball, badminton, volleyball, soccer and basketball), botany, zoology, movies (unless I saw one before I turned 30 or in the past 5 years), oceanography, parenting, medicine, construction, architecture, politics (other than Canadian and what's currently in the news from elsewhere), fashion, weapons . . . In fact, think of a subject, any subject, and I am not likely to know anything substantive about it. Sad, isn't it?
I used to believe that Wikipedia's greatest strength was its active effort to remain neutral in its point of view, even under the greatest of pressures to be everything else but. Unfortunately, the PR firms, the fanatics, the ethnic warriors, the politically brain-washed and the garden-variety vandals have overwhelmed any neutral voice. To be able to describe what is, without getting into what it ought or ought not to be, would set a fine standard the rest of the world could do well to emulate. It really is too bad that the failure in this is abject, on-going, and essentially unlamented,
I have been to the following 39 places, many more than once: Gibraltar, Mexico, Barbados, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Jamaica, British Virgin Islands, Sint Maarten, St. Martin, Venezuela, Panama, Costa Rica, Belize, Guatemala, Nicaraugua, Canada (all provinces except for Nunavit and the Yukon), United States (Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Nevada, California, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, Colorado, North Dakota, Minnesota, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois), England, Scotland, France, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Italy, Morocco, Sweden, Norway, Monaco, Switzerland, Cook Islands, New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Thailand, Hong Kong (before it rejoined China), Macao, Yugoslavia.
Still on my "one day, after I win a lottery" list are: Ireland, South Africa, Brazil, Russia, The Czech Republic, Poland, China, Japan and Mozambique.
Thanks to Rockpocket:
How to do diffs: .
Neutrality tags: Wikipedia:Neutrality templates