This question is probably more apt for /r/badhistory. In general, Cracked's approach to historical topics is often very problematic. It's standard paradigm is to approach history as "what you think about the past is wrong and here's why" which frequently entails erecting strawmen and oversimplifying things. While this is entertaining, such an approach generates more heat than light.

For example, the linked article on Alexandria states " Picture the librarians there: sort of a wise council of Dumbledores, quietly collecting knowledge and sharing wisdom with those who seek it, right?" which relies on a supposition of what a library is and sets the argument up for Cracked to knock it down. However, the author assumes that all libraries are to some degree open-stack systems in which patrons have relatively unfettered access to a library's holdings to create a democratization of knowledge with librarians as friendly enablers (aka Dumbledores). However, open-stack systems while very common in America thanks to Andrew Carnegie (and they are more uncommon in the rest of the world), are relatively new innovations in library science and expecting a library in the ancient world to hew to that standard (any patron can come in and browse) is an anachronism.

Edit: for clarity