Mahoney's 2005 essay never uses the term 'Whig history' or cites Butterfield — its critique is framed as anti-hype and anti-determinism, not an explicit Whig-history argument

whig-historyhistoriography-of-aihistory-of-computingmahoneypresentismprimary-source-verificationcorrection

A full-text read of Michael S. Mahoney's essay "The Histories of Computing(s)" (Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 30(2), 2005) found that "Whig," "whiggish," and "Butterfield" do not occur anywhere in its body text or its 28 endnotes. This corrects the vault's prior framing in claim-mahoney-warned-against-whig-history-of-computing, which described Mahoney as carrying Butterfield's Whig-history critique into the history of computing — a reading built from two secondary descriptions of Mahoney's stance (a Princeton biography page and an MIT STS course page), not from his own text.

The substance of Mahoney's argument overlaps closely with Whig-history critique — both attack reading a later outcome's inevitability back onto a contingent past — but he arrives at it independently, from the history-of-technology literature (the scholars he actually cites in this essay's notes include Kling and Scacchi, Haigh, Cortada, Agar, and Winner), not from the history-of-science Whig-history conversation Butterfield anchors. See claim-mahoney-machine-centred-history-hides-hype-as-inevitability and claim-mahoney-impact-theory-critique-restores-agency-to-communities-of-computing for what his own critique says in his own terms.