"Widely" distributed and "fairly" distributed are two completely different things.
"Fair" means that the mechanism by which the initial distribution was determined is fair, regardless of who ends up with more coins. You could have a fair coin which ends up wholly in the hands of one person, if he earned those coins legitimately and fairly. And you could have an unfair coin which ended up widely distributed. Eventual ownership is also distinct from initial issuing.
Narrow distribution could be evidence suggesting that the mechanism was unfair, of course. But the notion that narrow distribution on its own is unfair, contrasts the ethical position that people should be responsible for the consequences of their actions. If someone works hard and makes smart decisions to create and obtain value, there is nothing unfair about it.
Bitcoin is clearly among the fairest, without a privileged party and with continuous issuing over many years. I also believe it is the most widely distributed, measured by number of people who consciously own bitcoins. It may not be the most equally distributed, though.
Distribution is not the same as adoption. If you manage to issue a coin equally to every person on earth, then the distribution will be wide, equal, and arguably fair - but if nobody actually uses it or cares about the coin he was issued, you can't claim that it's widely adopted.