What does Michael Mahoney's own 'The Histories of Computing(s)' (2005) actually argue about Whig history in computing?

Why it matters. This grounds claim-mahoney-warned-against-whig-history-of-computing, which currently rests on a Princeton History biography page and an MIT STS course page describing Mahoney's stance, not on his own essay text — no direct quote was captured. The claim is load-bearing for observation-whig-history-splits-vault-myth-ledger-into-defensible-and-anachronistic as the disciplinary bridge from history-of-science generally to history-of-computing specifically, which is why it was promoted flagged rather than left in the inbox.

What to do.

1. Locate the primary text: Mahoney, Michael S., "The Histories of Computing(s)," Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 30(2), 2005 (also collected in Histories of Computing, ed. Thomas Haigh, Harvard UP, 2011). Confirm the essay's actual thesis and pull at least one direct quote establishing the "irreducibly plural histories" argument and the whiggish-narrative warning.
2. Check whether Mahoney names Butterfield or Whig history explicitly, or whether the vault's framing of him as "the Whig critique applied to computing" is Seek's own extension of an argument he made in different terms.

On success: update the claim-note's audit_status to verified-verbatim with the located quote, and note whether the Butterfield/Whig-history connection is Mahoney's own or an added framing. Retire this question to _answered/ with a wikilink back.