Uhhm... {{sofixit}}...
Mark
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 22:56:29 +0200, NSK <nsk2(a)wikinerds.org> wrote:
On Monday 14 February 2005 21:03, Marco Krohn wrote:
nevertheless I very much agree that the Wikipedia
is
very good concerning mathematical topics.
Personally, one of the reasons I started the
http://www.adapedia.org project
(now being migrated to better software) was Wikipedia's terrible (NPOV:
allegedly inadequate) coverage of Computer Science and Mathematics.
You don't have an article about quadratic classifiers. The Classifier article
talks about linguistics. The Software agent article is as short as a kids'
poem.
I have to recognise, however, that the naive bayes article is better. Perhaps
because it's based on an excellent book, which I happen to possess for some
years now.
--
NSK
http://portal.wikinerds.org
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l