It does feel like a bit of a snub — my guess is they did so because they see ChatGPT as a direct competitor, and don’t want to draw attention away from their own current or upcoming generative AI efforts.
Even the neutral POV policy of wikipedia is constantly worked around by various actors by marking "bad" sources as biased or unverified, while "good" sources canonical and neutral.
A little bias is inevitable. But there's no reason to cynically throw the baby out with the bathwater. We can still strive for fairness and balance. We should still complain when we see blatantly biased source, and seek out good journalism. We'll just never fully achieve it.
But thats ok. We can try anyway.