Borgman suggests that the period at which certain works appear can make certain interpretations of the work more important, leading to more educated humanitarians. Since most literature were written primarily in multiple languages, those who were willing to gain the primary source, since differing translations come with biased interpretations, had the more credible ideas regarding certain works. In such a way, the well-reknowned humanists are more educated than certain sciences in a way, which is interesting. An interesting point arises within the article when discussing humanists and their access to humanistic works. Borgman addresses that due to economic disparity and property rights, only a certain handful have the ability to access and analyze specific works; this could very well give rise to certain humanistic interpretations of artistic pieces being dominant, since there is only a select few that are primary sources. Additionally, the more limited an artistic piece is, the more associated monetary value as it ages, so there is less incentive for owners to relinquish their property in favor of more interpretations of work.