I think your statistics are wrong, and your conclusions doubly so, but even if correct, whites are an order of magnitude more likely to commit securities fraud than African Americans. Does that mean everyone should assume that their white stockbrokers are going to cheat them?
And if the # of white stockbrokers is TWO orders of magnitude higher than AA stockbrokers?
You have GOT, GOT, GOT, to account for representation in statistical samples.
Secondary source nonsense needs to stop too
100%. I used to contribute to WP, but stopped years ago. Chiefly because I was adding articles on VERY obscure software, systems, and tools, for which there's barely any references in trade publications, much less anything in popular press.
But no, WP editors demanded citations from places like New York Times or established blogs. Yeah, OK, the NYT is going to publish an article about the inventory-control-and-parts-interchange platform that many salvage yards run on (ADP Hollander Yard Management System). Have YOU ever heard of it? No. And you wouldn't. Unless you work in the industry.
Just one example among many, where rare information was contributed, and then kicked out simply because it wasn't substantiated "enough". Even links to the publisher's web site referencing the software weren't good enough. So why should I continue to help people when it's a complete waste of time?
If Wikipedia wants to "reduce toxicity", start by cleaning their own house first, before all the virtue-signalling bullshit.
What the gods would destroy they first submit to an IEEE standards committee.