Not really going to go into this on Twitter. I'm sure there's a lot of more nuanced stuff that I could say already written up by others.
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @Christakou
But obviously I'll give you a rough idea: 1. having a single person in charge of a field isn't really how progress is made;
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Christakou
2. a lot of his ideas have been superseded, shown to be misplaced, shown to have diverted linguistics into blind alleys and all this would
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Christakou
have been noticed sooner if there was more room at the top, than just a single person, as I am sure you can imagine;
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Christakou
3. is there such a thing as an unbiased curator? I assume you don't think so. why have only 1? that's why I raise dictator interpretation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
It's not a dictatorship if it's self imposed. People deserve the gods and monsters they choose to mythologise.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Christakou
Wow — I think we have very divergent ideas about Putin and Trump then.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Christakou
In your OP you asked if it was beneficial to have a curator (which I think means dictator in this context). I answered why I think it's not.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
I don't agree with your conflation. I DO agree, however, that in as much as any curator will be biased (because, human), best to have many.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Christakou
So many is... just like every other field within a single curator, right?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
*within= without
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.