- How do the four libraries compare to the ones we’ve studied in this module? What makes each one similar to the Library of Alexandria or Jefferson’s Universal Library?
A key similarity that I noticed is that all of them try to be universal in terms of content that is kept. The Library of Alexandra had “comprehensive or universal ambitions” (Rumsey Smith, p. 41); Jefferson’s Universal Library literally has “universal” in the name, and the Module 3d mentioned all of the different types of content he kept. This is similar to the four libraries we’re examining; all four libraries keep content of all kinds, ranging from maps and geospatial data at the University of Waterloo’s library to video/audio/software on the Internet Archive, now that these different types of media can be kept. Of course, all of them have lots books, and have somewaht different areas of focus.
- How are the libraries different from the ones we’ve studied in this module? What makes each one different from the Library of Alexandria or Jefferson’s Universal Library?
The main difference is the breadth of access. The Library of Alexandria seemed to be primarily an institution for elite scholars. Similarly, Jefferson’s Universal Library was first a personal collection, then only accessible to lawmakers, only becoming accessible to the general public in 1897 (https://www.loc.gov/about/history-of-the-library/). In contrast, the three internet-based libraries (Project Gutenberg, Internet Archive, JSTOR) are accessible by anyone (though JSTOR does require payment or an institutional subscription for some content). Even the University of Waterloo seems also be accessible to anyone, as community borrowers can apply for a library card.
- How does this help us understand how libraries have evolved since Alexandria?
Since Alexandria, libraries have slowly shifted from elite, centralized spaces toward broader access and decentralization. Alexandria was about gathering all knowledge in one physical place, which made it powerful but also fragile. Jefferson’s Universal Library moved things by organizing knowledge across disciplines and tying it to democratic governance, but it’s still limited by physical books and a specific audience. The modern libraries (especially the digital ones) share the same ethos of preservation and dissemination, but with evolution in terms of the method. Open-access projects like Project Gutenberg and the Internet Archive means knowledge is no longer tied to a physical building or a small group of scholars. Even restricted platforms like JSTOR show aspects of modern scholarship like classification, peer review. Furthermore, the breadth of a library’s collection has increased as information-preserving mediums have been invented, such as audio formats.
- How durable are each of these libraries? Could they last?
The Library of Alexandria and Jefferson’s library obviously had durability issues as fully physical libraries. The four modern libraries are mixed. Project Gutenberg and the Internet Archive are fairly durable because they are fully digital, and their collections are copied. JSTOR is likely similar but is more fragile in a financial sense, as access is contingent on subscriptions and publisher consent. The survival of the University of Waterloo library is similar contingent on the University’s funding; however, in terms of physical durability it is likely better than Alexandria and Jefferson’s library, due to several centuries’ worth of advancements in preservation practices.
Note that there is some nuance to the durability of digital media; compared to physical media, it is easy to copy, backup, and distribute, but heavily depends on technology staying readable.