Let me first apologize to LWN audience if I used too sloopy wording, it was indeed counterproductive as my basic intention is not to content my emotional part but to improve the information efficiency at LWN.
Let us try to stay rational and think about the whole process. The number of people reading a given LWN message amounts to well a few 1000's. Of these I guess a minority knows about W&W and don't need or will wish a simple link/explanation/summary about W&W. But even if a majority knows about W&W and only 10% of readers get impatient like me, and need each to google to learn about the basics of W&W they will well need a few 10's of sec to satisfy their curiosity, instead of a fraction of sec to read a short summary. On the other hand the time for the editor to write a short summary may take, say 10 sec. The overall global gain in time and satisfaction is clearly vastly in favor of this little investement by the LWN editor.
What you are fearing, "paragraph-long explanation", would be indeed counterproductive if the time spend by the editor to produce such explanations would not even be gained by the readership. Too wordy texts are also bad as they tend to become a time loss for the general audience. So one can estimate when a news channel is too terse or too wordy. My guess is that LWN is far from an average TV channel. In general I find the level right, just occasionally it may be too terse like in this case.