Which is what we all mean by race, anyways.

The latter is more genetically diverse than any other human population by an incredible margin. Making generalized statements about them is impossible (including this one). As for African American populations, ancestry estimates of how closely related they are to African populations vary massively for each individual. Many people are much closer to "white" populations than any African population, due to the history of African Americans in North America. If you really mean race as a geographic proxy, the "black" label is simply confusing what you actually mean.

For what it's worth, I'm mixed as hell. European, Asian, Jewish, north african, and native american. I look white, though - and I am, in fact, majority European ancestry. Therefore in most studies (of anything race related), I would presumably be lumped in with white people. It's not a perfect "measure," but it's still the easiest proxy for geographic location of our ancestors that we have and on a population level it works just fine for studies.

Though I will say it's beyond argument that geographic ancestry has an effect on IQ on a statistical group level (the reasons for this are what's debated), and that IQ is the best measurement of G that we have.

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

Regardless, one can see this claim of inaccuracy repeated in these comments with no provided example of such. The saying goes "what is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". It is therefore reasonable for a reader to conclude that the claim of inaccuracy can be dismissed as "bullshit", in the sense that the person making it cares not for its veracity.