[parsnipsumthing]

Is anyone concerned that these institutions are trading a level of detached respect for a temporary boost in popularity? I really don't need my dictionary to be "woke" and I'm not sure I enjoy listening to it shade people on the internet.

I think it weakens trust in institutions when they are all willing to stoop to the lowest common denominator.

[Declanomous]

I think it's a question of professionalism and whether it interferes with their ability to achieve their primary mission. I think the fact that Merriam Webster is a descriptive dictionary, rather than a prescriptive one makes a difference here. A lot of words are being coined and redefined on social media, and you could argue that by demonstrating a proficiency at interacting on these mediums they are also making an argument for their competence.

I personally think it's fine. I care about the quality of the dictionary, not the quality of their marketing, but marketing plays an important role in making money. I assume they'd have a twitter account no matter what, and this is probably better marketing than whatever a "professional" account would look like. Since I doubt their irreverence will put off people a substantial number of people from buying dictionaries, I'd say their account is probably a good thing.

I mean, it's a dictionary. It's not like they have a substantial role in world politics or anything.

[yolesaber]

So you'd rather them be impersonal and haughty?

Personally I have less respect for "detached" institutions nowadays. It removes them from the concerns of their users and attendees and creates an echo chamber. I love that you can directly petition companies with twitter and air grievances against them in public. It's high time companies act like they are run by and for humans and not just some black box of capital.

Also it's a dictionary - it's supposed to engage and work with language. And right now, twitter is where a lot of new usage of language is being fomented.