Wikipedia has an RfC on whether scientific racism is a fringe theory

[Leucosticte]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#RfC_on_race_and_intelligence

We have this one comment:

Having said that, just like your morbidly obese coworker who shoves the fifth candy bar in their face while telling you about that one study that found chocolate can actually help you lose weight, there is a whole cadre of people who are delighted to tout bad science and misinterpret good science to bolster whatever dark alleys their intuition has already led them into. But I am also keenly aware that Wikipedia is wont to adopt an equally oversimplified reactionary stance: bad bad bad, pseudoscience, nonsense, and now we're ready for our GA review. But then I've rarely found any subject where "moar nuance" is not my preferred option, so I guess you can take my own opinion for whatever it's worth.

And then:

The problem with "more nuance" on this matter is that if Wikipedia allows positive non-fringe coverage of scientific racism --- just as if WP were to allow positive coverage of quack cures --- that does concrete harm, because so many people rely on Wikipedia for information. This is not the case for all fringe viewpoints -- there'd probably be little damage done if there were an article with over 1000 pageviews/day that gave credence to claims of extraterrestrial abductions. Note that the editorial in Nature condemning scientific racism was in response to the violent Unite the Right rally that had occurred 4 days earlier in Charlottesville in the US.

Um, what about the risks from NOT being racist? E.g., what if you believe blacks are equally smart as whites, so you hire a black dude instead of a white dude, and he underperforms? Or you let a black dude into your college instead of a white dude, and he flunks out?