To link or not to link?

When discussing and disparaging items of interest, it occurs to me to wonder whether it would be better form to link directly to the item in question, or not to do so. There seem to be compelling reasons both ways.

Pro:

* Linking enables the reader to check out the source directly, thus circumventing any unintentional slant given by a paraphrase or quote.
* Linking gives the reader direct access to the original writer, with which the reader may check out facts and ask for clarification.
* Linking provides accountability for the linker, who knows he or she may not misrepresent the piece to which he or she is linking, for the sake of making a straw man argument.

Con:

* Linking requires specific finger-pointing, leaving the shelter of vague platitudes for the out-on-a-limbishness of direct confrontation.
* Linking may provide unwarranted attention to a subject which had much better be left to die in peace.
* Linking may lead to the charge of gossip, in that it names names.

Why is this a subject matter of particular interest to me? Because I occasionally stumble across things which irk me, and I wish to point them out for the sake of waxing vexatious thereon. But, of course, I do not wish to gossip or launch personal attacks. But, then again, if I honestly disagree with or disapprove of something, wouldn't it be better to call it out in the open so all could judge for themselves instead of taking my word for it that I am right and the particular instance I am anonymously citing (for the sake of protecting such instance's privacy, of course) is wrong?