Wikipedia is not the absolute authority on everything. No, really. Impressive, yes, but it's not correct 100% of the time. In fact sometimes it's crazy how wrong it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wi...
Wikipedia is not (by design, one should note) an authority on anything. As a tertiary source, it summarizes and provided pointers to actual authority, when it's quality standards are being upheld. It is never more than that.
A group of people with an agenda writing volumes of tautological speculation doesn't make it credible.
Near East historians have an agenda? News to me. What’s the proportion of Christians versus non‐Christians in that field?
Even if that group is replete with biased theists (something you seem to be suggesting but haven’t presented any evidence for), surely there is some scholarly group whose views on historical science you can agree would be worth listening to. So what’s their consensus on the historicity of Jesus?
And Thomas Sheehan, the philosopher and presenter of the podcast you linked to, accepts the historicity of Jesus.
> Wikipedia is not the absolute authority on everything.
Are you attributing this view to me?