The "scientific consensus" the parent comment mentioned is referring to published studies, with data to back up their conclusions. The numbers you are citing seem to be from an opinion poll. Where did any of the 49% surveyed get the idea that "50% or more of the Black-White gap" can be "attributed" to genetics? What is their methodology for the attribution?

Bringing up an opinion poll as a counterpoint makes it read like you're arguing that Wikipedia should focus less on fact and more on opinion. Of course, you're free to think what you wish, but I suspect that's where most disagree.

> I'm not arguing anything other than the fact that Wikipedia is biased.

It "is biased" to document human knowledge as accurately as possible. Is there something wrong with that?

One could find a position in the most morally attractive organization they are aware of, and then work really hard.

> Why would you start to work for elon musk if you consider yourself a decent person, but him unworkable for?

Anyone working at Twitter at the time of its acquisition could have found themselves in such a position.