The Ars Technica article is a lot more critical of Microsoft and provides some history. That said, it is frustrating how most of the links just link to other Ars articles.
Everybody is copying the Wikipedia model, trying very hard to keep you on their website.
When I click on link in an article, almost always it’s because I want to cross reference the information on a different source. If the link takes me to another article on the same site, I usually stop reading altogether.
Wikipedia is an exception, of course.
Why would Wikipedia be an exception?
Wikipedia offers it's external links via citations
And I guessed a while ago that this is why people on HN sometimes say "citation needed", when someone makes a claim about something.
To me it’s a snide passive-aggressive way of saying “bullshit”, and I can’t help but hear it in the Simpsons Comic Book Guy’s voice.
Probably an exception in the "reason" for clicking hyperlinks, is what came to mind.
Of course another reply notes the clear external vs. internal link approach of wikipedia, too.
When it comes to Wiki, I don't mind that though. The links in the footnotes are there if you want to see the external sources.
That isn't the "actual article" by any stretch. A corporate blog post and an article from an online news outlet are different things.