I'm going to take a slightly different approach and suggest that the inline editing as Willl suggests would be a bit more sustainable, but only in certain circumstances.
One of the things we battle with on a daily basis on the Stack Exchange network is link rot. The goal of a Stack Exchange post isn't just to help the asker, a single individual, but to instead act as a resource of knowledge for hundreds of future visitors for years to come.
The more "self-contained" a question or answer is, the better the chance that the material will still be useful. In addition, I don't have to visit a link if all I want is the name of the acronym, but I can visit the link if I wish to go on an in-depth tangent and learn all there is to know about the keyword.
With that said, links are awesome, and they're a great way to allow for more further reading on a topic, while adding in the actual name of the acronym ensures that, if the link were to ever break, I'd still know what SWOT stands for and won't accidentally Google for military-style police raids. ;)
Now, opponents of this idea might suggest that this might dumb things down a little too much, and I agree. Since we're building a site for experts, I'd say Tiago's suggestion is a bit more reasonable, so long as the bulk of the question or answer material doesn't require me to visit a link.
So, a good guideline would be this: If an expert on SWOT has to visit your link in a question/answer about SWOT in order to understand it, then include the material in the post. However, if the link is only to help the non-experts understand or is just "for further reading", then use a hyperlink only. Thoughts?