I don't think it's controversial to say that linking between pieces of information has, in some online communities, become an end-in-itself; a good piece of text contains a lot of links, and a good corpus is heavily interlinked (The Sequences, or second brains). Project Xanadu was built off of this, using bidirectional linking and transclusions to maximize the efficacy and efficiency of referring to other sources.
However, I think this isn't generalizable, and links are a lot more limited in scope than they may seem; links are essentially zhuzhed-up citations, and benefit media where citation is inherently useful (e.g., news articles, research papers, essays). Outside of that scope, their value is limited at best, and actively detrimental at worst.
Let's begin with the most obvious case: narrative fiction. Narrative fiction is perhaps notable in its lack of direct transformation by hypertext; while webfiction exists, it's limited in scope and internal linking acts more like a choose-your-own-adventure book in the general case. One might rebut this point by arguing that wikis (a popular if controversial way to consume fiction) are link-dense and use the link as a core primitive, but those are essentially research repositories about fictional content. Similarly, the SCP wiki, a heavily-linked tabsplosion generator, maintains its content as...a series of articles by researchers and the like. When the SCP wiki transitions to other media, like games, the structure reverts to traditional, unlinked narrative.
More broadly, anything that seeks to maintain a certain pace and mindset in the reader as a single experience is hurt by links, because they distract and interrupt. You can use this to your advantage, like Infinite Jest and its endnotes (and I myself have been a footnote merchant), but it cannot be denied that this is a gamble, especially with the WWW where pages are distinct and opening and reading a new one requires a full context switch.
Now, you may concede the above point but maintain that hyperlinked notes are inherently good, as links reveal emergent associations between otherwise-unrelated pieces of information. I don't believe that.
My own notes are largely a big bucket of atomic ideas and thoughts, when are then appended to, accreting into something outline-shaped. Assuming I act on it, this coalesces into output (for example, Naming the Crow). As such, they're pretty self-contained, and linking is largely relegated to "thing that inspired original idea" or "resource supporting contention" (if I'm doing something factual).
So, what's the lesson here? Probably something along the lines of "do what works for you" (terrible advice but still true), "don't Goodhart shit", and "not all technology is generalizable".