Wikipedia has its own enormous biases; it's editor population is enormously white, male, and American. That changes the filter of what they believe to be notable.

I don't see a realistic way to include every social group of human, proportionally to their impact. This is enormous task. And if we could - would you read news that has 20% content praising chairman Winnie-the-Pooh Xi? Because that's what proportional system would bring. Or 20% news about benefits of peasful islam.

If whole country pushes certain narrative would it make the truth due to sheer number of supporters?

PS: I'm not saying that WASP news are unbiased.

What I'm saying is that we should not take Wikipedia as some paragon of unbiased news. Your editor population determines the content that is published, critiqued and updated. They might have better standards than many online edited sources, but they are far from lacking bias.

If a human was involved, it was biased.