After reading your articles, it looks like Wikipedia does not need to be updated at all.
The group is still indeed a nutty cult and while the gas used may contribute to a fire, there was evidence that the Davidians did start the fire, whether or not the gas helped it grow.
The police came to investigate the sexual abuse; the response was the murder of several agents, eventually leading to the stand-off. Easy to claim there is no evidence of sexual abuse if you murder anyone who investigates...
Whether the fire was accidentally started by the tear-gas or set by the Branch Davidians themselves isn't actually all that important in deciding if they're a wacky cult or not.
People from the cult did survive, did do interviews, and even brought lawsuits. A large group was released before the fires and nine more survived the entire incident. So maybe you aren’t as familiar as you think? Furthermore, we already know more than enough about the cult from _before_ the incident. It’s pretty clear they are a nutty cult.
But, I suspect none of what I wrote above matters to you. You’ll probably still say that it’s a conspiracy and the group was a normal gathering of people, ignoring all of the evidence to the contrary. So I’m not even sure what I hope to gain from this response.
As addressed in the upstream PBS summary and the released report linked here, arsom investigators concluded the fire started at multiple internal ignation points simultaneously etc. etc.
The report lists the physical evidence that led to that conclusion.
Naturally you can assert that the report was doctored and the evidence fabricated, others can then respond and ask where is your evidence <shrug>.
The group is still indeed a nutty cult and while the gas used may contribute to a fire, there was evidence that the Davidians did start the fire, whether or not the gas helped it grow.