This source was indeed bad; I don't mean to hop on the "Wikipedia is the worst thing ever" bandwagon, but there are certain things about it that I just can't seem to trust. Such as him being strongly influenced by our very own Mike Ackerman, now isn't that some great history! No but seriously, even the organization was not up-to-par, I like the intro at the beginning before the great wall of text, but there is very little "organization". I guess you could call it organized with Wikipedia's little contents box that always comes after the intro paragraph(s), but I'm not convinced its good enough. However, this Wikipedia article is seemingly full of mostly facts, though I think the accuracy could be a little off. Mike Ackerman probably disagrees with me though.
The only questions I have are about his gain in power and how the people viewed him at a person in society. I guess the only reason I have so little questions is because of the lack of interest I read most Wikipedia articles with; but I also think the views given on his life were relatively in-depth. To find out more about him I would probably just run an internet search, and try to look for more reliable sources that not just anyone can edit. To filter Google searches of his name, I would probably look for things like the URL's to look for something more official than .com, probably more along the lines of .org. But also adding keywords into my search for whatever specifically i might be trying to find out about him would work.
He probably sparked so much imagination because of his role in flourishing Baghdad, but I didn't see anything in the article about him in pop culture, or why, at least. I don't think I have ever heard his name until today, which I think about sums up why I'm sort of confused as to whether I should have known about him previously or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment