And an American bias, with American editors still being a relative majority of Wikipedia editors. And a Western bias too, etc.
I don't think we could ever come up with an objective list of "who are the best people ever". Though it could be a fun project to define some criterions and search for who maxes them in history.
Now I wouldn't be so quick to say this, because after all, we are talking about far more than the English Wikipedia here.
The English Wikipedia is the original, the largest, and the most visible project, but it's completely independent from the other ones.
I would say that many of the other language projects have majority non-American editors, because fluent and native speakers are more likely to be able to contribute in a big way to them. Perhaps immigrants to America may hold down a large part as well, but if you peer under the hood of some of these projects, you'll find a lot of their controversies and biases result from nationalism and adherence to regional cultures and customs that differ with American ones.
Now it wouldn't be surprising that most/all projects exhibit an incipient Western bias, because the WMF is a Western organization and based in Western culture, so any editor drawn to that ethos may tend to be less in line with foreign biases. But we have seen, just from disputes that bubble over into enwiki, or Commons or Wikidata, that there is a true diversity to editors, and I think it's a disservice that anyone projects enwiki demographics onto the other projects.
Hum, sure. I would add too that all Wikipedia projects are still related to each other, with the English one being at the center of the graph.
A lot of articles in the French Wikipedia use translated paragraphs from the English one, and I would think it is a similar story for the other Wikipedias, although I don't speak any other languages well enough to verify that.
Similarly, I would think English Wikipedia benefits from articles or bits of articles ported to it from other languages. All that to say, Wikipedia is more connected that you may think.
So I don't know what you think I think, but I already said this is so. Nobody has said any different. The independent governance of the projects is nevertheless a fact, though; they all make independent decisions in terms of content retention as we are discussing in this thread. All the editors who "port" or translate bits of articles are operating independently, and there is actually no way to logically link the material using wikicode; if the text is edited in one place, then its content will diverge from every other place it appears. In other words, the projects are independent from one another, despite "cross-pollination", translation, or "porting" of text from one to another.
I don't think we could ever come up with an objective list of "who are the best people ever". Though it could be a fun project to define some criterions and search for who maxes them in history.