user1590: I realise that for a great number of users English is not their native language, and therefore the English writing will frequently contain mistakes. I have no issue spending some of my time making edits to such sort of genuine mistakes. I firmly believe we should be encouraging non-native English speakers to participate and use English to the best of their abilities.
However, deliberate use of slang, abbreviations, colloquialisms etc. should be avoided. Users should be at least trying to write in correct English to avoid confusion, improve clarity, and help make all posts accessible to all users. There are a number of users who do not do this.
For example, the following question features such problems:

"When I was younger like 10 I used to drop big logs but now I'm older
  my logs are not so big"

and a subsequent comment shows the confusion:

"I honestly thought at first he was talking about chopping wood or wearing wooden shoes"

And comments on an answer were also poorly written:

"Downvoters didnt study enough poop in school cuz they were grossed
  out and thought ''eeww icky', but I went the distance for you @Jan,
  you know me n you is down."


user22392: I think that there are 2 things going on here:

the functional need for clarity in questions [tl;dr: GOOD],
preference for a particular dialect of English (or level of formality!) in questions [tl;dr: BAD].

I strongly support (1) and believe that we should be opposed to (2). The question seems to have been taken down in the intervening years, but as far as I can tell you are not distinguishing these two things when you talk about "correct English". And I think that it is possible to write quite clearly in dialects of English that I don't speak that. Dialects of English can be mutually intelligible if people make the effort to communicate (i.e. clarity).
I agree to some extent that the quote from the question (about big vs. little logs) is a little hard to parse for me. But the quote from the comments ("Downvoters didnt study enough poop in school...") is perfectly comprehensible, even if it's not the way I would put it.
Maybe I'm forgetting something in the SE guidelines, but I see it as part of the mission for SE Biology (and other SE sites that use English as their language) to make an effort to answer comprehensible questions written in AAVE or Scots (though it's technically a different language) or the slang of that question/comment.
We all try hard enough to answer incomprehensible questions written in "correct" UK or US English, even though only a rather small minority of the English-speaking population uses these as a first language.
In this case I think that it's perfectly possible for us to ask in a comment "what do you mean when you say that you 'drop logs'?" in the same way that we might ask "what do you mean by 'protein interactions'?", if that were unclear (e.g. protein-protein vs. protein-DNA vs. whatever). We might feel un-hip or silly in the first case, but there's no real difference between the two.

1590: <p>I realise that for a great number of users English is not their native language, and therefore the English writing <em>will</em> frequently contain mistakes. I have no issue spending some of my time making edits to such sort of genuine <em>mistakes</em>. I firmly believe we should be encouraging non-native English speakers to participate and use English to the best of their abilities.</p>

<p><strong>However, <em>deliberate</em> use of slang, abbreviations, colloquialisms etc. should be avoided. Users should be at least <em>trying</em> to write in correct English to avoid confusion, improve clarity, and help make all posts accessible to all users.</strong> There are a number of users who do not do this.</p>

<p>For example, <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/42087/we-are-not-all-the-same-on-the-inside">the following question features such problems:</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"When I was younger like 10 I used to drop big logs but now I'm older
  my logs are not so big"</p>
</blockquote>

<p>and a subsequent comment shows the confusion:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"I honestly thought at first he was talking about chopping wood or wearing wooden shoes"</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And comments on an answer were also poorly written:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Downvoters didnt study enough poop in school cuz they were grossed
  out and thought ''eeww icky', but I went the distance for you @Jan,
  you know me n you is down."</p>
</blockquote>
 22392: <p>I think that there are 2 things going on here:</p>
<ol>
<li>the functional need for <em>clarity</em> in questions [tl;dr: GOOD],</li>
<li>preference for <em>a particular dialect of English</em> (or level of formality!) in questions [tl;dr: BAD].</li>
</ol>
<p>I strongly support (1) and believe that we should be opposed to (2). The question seems to have been taken down in the intervening years, but as far as I can tell you are not distinguishing these two things when you talk about &quot;correct English&quot;. And I think that it is possible to write quite clearly in dialects of English that I don't speak that. <a href="https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/198932/are-there-any-mutually-unintelligible-english-dialects">Dialects of English can be mutually intelligible</a> if people make the effort to communicate (i.e. clarity).</p>
<p>I agree to some extent that the quote from the question (about big vs. little logs) is a little hard to parse for me. But the quote from the comments (&quot;Downvoters didnt study enough poop in school...&quot;) is perfectly comprehensible, even if it's not the way I would put it.</p>
<p>Maybe I'm forgetting something in the SE guidelines, but I see it as part of the mission for SE Biology (and other SE sites that use English as their language) to make an effort to answer comprehensible questions written in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Vernacular_English" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AAVE</a> or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Scots</a> (though it's technically a different language) or the slang of that question/comment.</p>
<p>We all try hard enough to answer incomprehensible questions written in &quot;correct&quot; UK or US English, even though only <a href="https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/how-many-people-speak-english-and-where-is-it-spoken" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a rather small minority of the English-speaking population uses these as a first language</a>.</p>
<p>In this case I think that it's perfectly possible for us to ask in a comment &quot;what do you mean when you say that you 'drop logs'?&quot; in the same way that we might ask &quot;what do you mean by 'protein interactions'?&quot;, if that were unclear (e.g. protein-protein vs. protein-DNA vs. whatever). We might feel un-hip or silly in the first case, but there's no real difference between the two.</p>
