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.
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.