The Wikipedia article makes it sound that, while it's still controversial, most researchers have concluded it's not a fake (or at least the inscription genuinely is old). I was wondering if this accurately reflects current thought on it, or if the article's biased one way or the other.
Any other info you have on the ossuary would be of interest as well. For example, assuming it is real and Jesus did exist, what would be the odds that it'd be the ossuary of Jesus' brother anyway? Would it be common to find brothers named James and Jesus whose father was Joseph, or what?
The overwhelming view is that it is a wholly or partially fraudulent inscription on an unquestionably authentic first century ossuary. The IAA findings are tough to dispute. Some (eg Witherington, unless he's changed his mind that I haven't seen) still cling to it, but not very many, and no one with relevant scientific expertise, to my knowledge.
From its announcement, a number of researchers put forth arguments about the frequency of the names, culminating with the claim that, if authentic, it almost has to be Jesus (eg Fusch). Critics responded almost immediately pointing out an improper use of statistics, the paltry size of the sample (usually 240 names or so from other ossuaries, though sometimes more, we simply don't have enough information to create the probabilities we need), and the lower confidence we can have that Jesus' father was actually named Joseph (there is a strong argument that the name is symbolic, calling to mind Joseph of dream coat fame). It's either difficult or impossible, therefore, to answer your second question.
A few brief comments:
Nobody seriously doubts that the ossuary is a genuine(probably looted) first century Judean ossuary; the question is whether the inscription is wholly or partially modified. However, the owner and discoverer of the Ossuary apparently had a substantial workshop dealing in forged inscriptions on genuine objects, the Israel Antiquities Authority has not retracted its claims that it's a forgery, and it therefore seems reasonable to assume this is a forgery
Even if it were real, the ossuary would by itself not prove very much. It was looted, and therefore lacks archaeological context; we don't know where it was originally, what kind of tomb it was in, what other kinds of ossuaries surrounded it, and so on. Nor can we examine whatever human remains may have survived in it, although generally speaking Jerusalem ossuaries are not especially great for preserving bone. As it is, all we would have is very typical undecorated first-century ossuary with a inscription containing three very common personal names and not a shred of information to tell us anything about the circumstances surrounding its use.