That's not necessarily a bad thing as long as the article is open enough for the "This is provably false" information to be attached to it right alongside the data. Information about untrue things is still useful; a lot of human-generated data is fundamentally fantastical in some way (consider the vast swaths of Wikipedia that are the "histories" of completely fictional characters).
The risk comes in when the people who have the time to curate and shape the article are the ones whose beliefs are demonstrably untrue, and the counter-evidence gets stripped from the article.
The risk comes in when the people who have the time to curate and shape the article are the ones whose beliefs are demonstrably untrue, and the counter-evidence gets stripped from the article.