As you can see in the client, the rating is in accordance with values provided by Rito (although there are minor differences, as their 'Utility' description no longer involves vision; and they're using only rank 1, whereas wiki utilizes both 0 and 1).
Wiki should mostly just reflect these values without subjective alterations. However, I have to personally agree that such level of utility seems unjustified to me as well. If their in-client definition of utility still included a vision, then such amount could possibly be reasonable.
I don't think that "fixing" the value on the website, thus making it different from the values provided within the client, would be an appropriate/robust solution though. Maybe feel free to report this anomaly via Rito's bug reporting tool. I already did the same for, whose 1/1/1/1/1 ratings are quite suspicious.