Yes, but: the text snippet is clearly labeled "Wikipedia" and is in the same box with the photo. Combined with the Wikipedia article being the first result, this would certainly give the average person casually searching the impression that the data in the box comes from Wikipedia, which tends to be a reasonably accurate, conservative source on living persons.
The idea of mashing up the first image search result with the wikipedia snippet with no indication they are from totally unrelated sources seems pretty careless and irresponsible.
One might be so inclined to label Google a peddler of fabricated misinformation...
I seriously can't believe that the sources of the image and text aren't labeled with their respective sources. Doing so seems basic, obvious and trivial. Not doing so seems to be a blatant attempt to hide expected inaccuracies and make meaningless combinations of information seem more authoritative than it actually is.
While I think this individual would have a hard time in any court system, let alone the US court system, could Wikipedia perhaps have a claim of damages for libel (or something to this effect) due to misattributed information and reputational damage?
The idea of mashing up the first image search result with the wikipedia snippet with no indication they are from totally unrelated sources seems pretty careless and irresponsible.