Look at the hyperlinks in the Wired article: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/water-transportation-occupations.htm https://www.bls.go

Look at the hyperlinks in the Wired article: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/water-transportation-occupations.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/w... https://www.wired.com/story/no-more-screen-time-navy-reverts-physical-throttles/ https://www.wired.com/story/no-more-screen-time-navy-reverts... https://www.washington.edu/news/2017/09/07/ship-exhaust-makes-oceanic-thunderstorms-more-intense/ https://www.washington.edu/news/2017/09/07/ship-exhaust-make... https://www.wired.com/story/cleaner-ships-more-expensive-holidays/ https://www.wired.com/story/cleaner-ships-more-expensive-hol... https://www.wired.com/story/cleaner-ships-more-expensive-holidays/ https://www.wired.com/story/cleaner-ships-more-expensive-hol... Five links, three back to their own site, two away from their site. But none of them link to the academic paper! This is totally unacceptable. Is this not the web, aren't hyperlinks the most basic tool we have when creating the web? Aren't hyperlinks what make the "web" a web in the first place? So why then do media organizations refuse to use them properly? (Sometimes they have the excuse of "not wanting to send precious eyeballs to somebody else's site" which I don't think is an excuse that should be tolerated but isn't even relevant here since they did include two links that leave Wired.) I don't think we should be rewarding this sort of gatekeeping behavior. This isn't a one time fluke. Refusing to link to source material even though it's available on the web is the status quo for scientific journalism in particular. It's gatekeeping, and shouldn't be accepted as the status quo.