::: First of all, we don't need to say that "LLC" means "Limited Liability Company" in the lead sentence of the article.  Come on, man we're an encyclopedia  our goal is to define what "Ars Technica" IS, not who owns it.  People reading the article really, honestly don't care that the web site is owned by a company with the same name as the web site.  We also don't need to describe minute details of subscriptions or renewals; again, terms of use do not hold much in the way of encyclopedic value.  Always bear this in mind: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE INTERNET  we don't need to collate every possible little piece of information, if it's readily available on the public web site the article talks about.  This saves us the rather onerous responsibility of updating the article when some of these minute details change.    

 ::: When something is interesting, and has high informative value, it belongs in Wikipedia. For example, the article on Starbucks devotes some space to their non-smoking policy because it has been controversial in some countries with a strong smoking culture... however, we don't report on what kind of cash registers Starbucks uses in their stores, because it is of low informative value. 

 ::: Anyways, if you need more examples of how Wikipedia deals with tech sites, Have a look at AnandTech, Tom's Hardware Guide, HardOCP, Blue's News, Penny Arcade (webcomic), Experts-Exchange, or any number of Ars Technica's peers.   

 ::: There's a further problem in that you are adding factually incorrect information, which Clintology noted below and removed.  If you expect your contributions to be taken seriously, you'll have to do better than this.