This was true of medieval clerics and Enlightenment historians as well. It's almost always the idle writing history because everyone else is too busy working or living their own lives. The exception to this rule is patronage history (e.g. paying others to write flattering histories) but that's exactly what this kind of astroturfing on Wikipedia is.

Not sure how that links to the article considering that these IP ranges are linked to professional institutions.

> A modern spin on this: history is no longer written by the victors, but by people with literally no life outside of writing crap on the internet

There’s perhaps a narrow sense in which this is true of how it is written, but that's really not the sense the original gets at, anyhow.

Which elements of the writing of those “people with literally no life” gets distributed, amplified, and becomes crystallized as history is still actively shaped by the victors, not only of the clashes between societies, but of the class and subculture conflicts within them.

And that editorial and distribution control, not the actual mechanical act of writing, is what the original was about.

> A modern spin on this: history is no longer written by the victors, but by people with literally no life outside of writing crap on the internet

Still acting on the basis of the propaganda they drank like kool-aid, but pretty much. Hard to exclude some biased editors aren't actually paid from organizations/parties tho.