The Way We Write History Has Changed

I thought the article would talk about the style of prose found in historical documents, but instead they talked about how the archival process and mediums have changed due to technological advances.

I've always noticed the differences in styles of writing in certain historical records about old events and recent events (on Wikipedia at least).

Here's a random example.

Yuan Shao's Attendant Officer (從事) Ju Shou had reservations about concentrating all of the main army at Yangwu, and suggested leaving a garrison at Yan Ford as a precaution in case the attack on Guandu did not go well. Yuan Shao ignored the suggestion again. Ju Shou, in despair, tried to excuse himself by claiming to be ill, but Yuan Shao became annoyed at him and would not grant him leave.

I find it interesting how some of the articles on older conflicts talk about things like historical figures "in despair" or being annoyed at each other, as if it were a tale of some kind. For recent events the prose is likely influenced by the prose news outlets used as the source write in so there is usually no need to write such things. For some reason it feels unlikely you'd read about George W. Bush being "infuriated" by something unless it was taken from a direct quote from someone in the source and surrounded by quotes also. Maybe it feels like editorializing if accurate information is easily available due to the Internet, or similarly that was just how people wrote in older times so it also influences the historical record.

I don't know why but it's been on my mind for a long time.

Meta-history — interesting! For historians of history...

Open up and digital the oxford paper helped. Even though you might want to visit oxford as the article argued.