Personal opinion only, but WikiTree is very conscious about disclosing any actual DNA information...meaning SNP alleles (other than stating a haplogroup designation) and STR comparative repeats. Depending upon what the chart shows, it may be a privacy guidelines issue here.
Barring that, I see no reason that some explanative detail shouldn't be added under a == Research Notes == section.
However, if the comparison is using STRs only and there are only two men being compared, the results at that genetic distance (assuming that when you say a 5-step distance you mean a GD of 5 using FTDNA's infinite allele model) might not be all that useful. And the relative value of the GD count will depend upon how many STRs are being evaluated. For example, a GD4 isn't reported as match at the 37-marker level; at 67 markers up to a GD7 is reported; at 111 markers up to a GD10 is reported. That I personally feel those levels are a bit too lenient doesn't matter.
By way of example--and referencing a different branch of R-P312--in one mature DNA project we have with almost 25 Big Y test-takers, there are several members at GD5 at 111 markers that we absolutely known did not share a common ancestor before circa 900 CE, and others who should date to around 1600 and are only one branch different on the phylotree.
Daryl, I don't know if the other descendant of John Davis is also Big Y tested like you are, but if so I believe combining the STR and SNP data would make a much more compelling case than an STR GD5 alone. As would being able to analyze three or more sets of test results.
