I would suggest that it is more a matter of position. Kirschenbaum writes from within mainstream DH, and is aware of the many discussions of DH that have occurred since its inception in 1949[1] (an arbitrary, but useful date). In another work of his (and he's not the only one analysing these matters), he lampoons the kinds of critique offered by Ethan Miller.

Kirschenbaum writes: "Herewith, then, are some of the terrible things of my title, hardly any of which are exaggerated for effect: Digital humanities is a nest of big data ideologues. Digital humanities digs MOOCs. Digital humanities is an artifact of the post-9/11 security and surveillance state (the NSA of the MLA). Like Johnny, digital humanities can’t read. Digital humanities doesn’t do theory. Digital humanities never historicizes. Digital humanities is complicit. Digital humanities is naive. Digital humanities is hollow huckster boosterism. Digital humanities is managerial. Digital humanities is the academic import of Silicon Valley solutionism (the term that is the shibboleth of bad-boy tech critic Evgeny Morozov). Digital humanities cannot abide critique. Digital humanities appeals to those in search of an oasis from the concerns of race, class, gender, and sexuality. Digital humanities does not inhale (easily the best line of the bunch). Digital humanities wears Google Glass. Digital humanities wears thick, thick glasses (guilty). Perhaps most damning of all: digital humanities is something separate from the rest of the humanities, and—this is the real secret—digital humanities wants it that way. Terrible things indeed these are!"[2]

Miller reiterates many of these positions without acknowledgement that not only have they been discussed before, they have even become points of ridicule. Perhaps one does not need to agree with those within DH, like Kirschenbaum, but to regurgitate "MOOCs", "silicon valley" and "big data" without at least a passing familiarity with the discussions that have been going on is more than a little shallow.

Yet, DH usually thinks of itself as "big tent", so competing histories and conceptions are part of its very fabric, and sure to be welcomed. The problem with assessments of DH from the outside is that they usually end up rather unsavoury and polemic, hence Kirschenbaum's invocation of William Pannapacker's rabble rousing and the attendant fallout.

[1] http://www.digitalhumanities.org/companion/view?docId=blackw... [2] https://mkirschenbaum.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/dhterrible...