I agree with Jeromy. And just to add my 2-cents worth here as well is the fact that certain disciplines may also have certain terminology [still] engrained in their writing styles. For instance, I try to write in a person-centered way here on SE and elsewhere, yet I'm still talking about cochlear implant users (as opposed to people with a CI), simply because pretty much everyone in the field refers to these folks in this way. So why should I change the style of writing here on SE, whereas in papers I do the opposite? In such cases it may be a bit awkward when someone with lesser knowledge in the area starts correcting my posts on this topic.

So I agree and underscore Jeromy's conclusion that

[T]he person making the edits should be truly confident that there is an established preferred terminology and that it is not just a personal stylistic preference

I agree with Jeromy. And just to add my 2-cents worth here as well is the fact that certain disciplines may also have certain terminology [still] engrained in their writing styles. For instance, I try to write in a person-centered way here on SE and elsewhere, yet I'm still talking about cochlear implant users (as opposed to people with a CI), simply because pretty much everyone in the field refers to these folks in this way. So why should I change the style of writing here on SE, whereas in papers I do the opposite? 

In such cases it may be a bit awkward when someone outside the area of expertise starts correcting posts created by a more well-versed person in that area of research because certain phrases happen to disobey person-centered writing.

So I agree and underscore Jeromy's conclusion that

[T]he person making the edits should be truly confident that there is an established preferred terminology and that it is not just a personal stylistic preference