While Wikipedia is largely fact-based, it is not without errors and some articles may show bias.

Wikipedia aims to be seen as an encyclopedia, but not as an arbiter of truth. This means, like any encylopedia, its articles reflect the status of presently published knowledge. Whether the published knowledge are factual or not comes only into play when someone formally contests what is published, as in the present case.

However, unlike Wikipedia, courts do position themselves as arbiters of truth and allow both parties to make claims and counters as well as allowing parties to cross examine one another. The court invovled here has to rule if ANI is hurt rightfully, or not. Looks like no one will be contesting against ANI, as Wikipedia has bowed out.

Wikipedia positioning itself as a mere intermediary has a consequence on how people will view Wikipedia henceforth, including the percieved quality of its articles - Wikipedia itself did not take any position on whether the article is factual or not.