Readers are entitled to know that that is a fringe view. Wiki. Of course the Tacitus passage doesn't prove the existence of a historical Jesus, but it is not a manifest swindle as suggested here.
Wiki is only as good as the material it references.
Most modern scholars consider the passage to be authentic.[42][43] William L. Portier has stated that the consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts. Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to be of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records
[42] Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000. p 39- 53
Wm. B. Eerdmans ALSO gave us the definition of the Christ Myth was that the story of Jesus (NOT the man himself) "is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982, 1995 The article then goes on to "prove" the Triumphal Jesus ie the miracle working demi-god.
Another example of Wm. B. Eerdmans nonsense is in the 2004
Jesus Then and Now where the authors are allows to FALSELY CLAIM "Jesus is also mentioned in the writings of the three main Roman historical writers from the end of the first century CE — Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonus."
In reality the name Jesus is mentioned in NONE of those works NOT A SINGLE ONE.
Either Wm. B. Eerdmans editorial department just rubber stamps everything or they aren't very good. Perhaps both. Van Voorst is like the girl with the curl; when he is good he is great and when he is bad he is horrid.
[43]
Tradition and Incarnation: Foundations of Christian Theology by William L. Portier 1993 ISBN 0-8091-3467-5 page 263
A quick trip to Amazon reveals the publisher to be Paulist Press which describes themselves: "Since 1865, as a mission of the Paulist Fathers, Paulist Press has published
the best of Catholic thought at the intersection of faith and culture, using all contemporary media
to communicate religious truths and to support people in their search for meaning."
So we have one publisher who can be demonstrated to at best not cross check what its writers send it and the other expressly states it is "to communicate religious truths".
All you have demonstrated is when it comes to Christian articles wikipedia has degenerated into a joke as far as what it considers reliable sources.
The James Ossuary article proves this:
A 2014 study supported the authenticity of the engravings. It found that patina on the ossuary surface matched that in the engravings, and that microfossils in the inscription seemed naturally deposited.[18]
[18] Rosenfeld, Amnon; Feldman, Howard R.; Krumbein, Wolfgang E. (2014). "The Authenticity of the James Ossuary". Open Journal of Geology 4 (3): 69–78. doi:10.4236/ojg.2014.43007. Retrieved 7 April 2014.
As the talk page over at Rationalwiki points out:
You are right to be skeptical about the authenticity of
Open Journal of Geology There is an interesting piece on Scholarly Open Access regarding a list of predatory publishers for 2014. In the comment section the author states that Scientific Research Publishing (the parent publisher of Open Journal of Geology)
"is known for accepting and publishing questionable science, and this could hurt the reputation of your work if you publish in one of their journals."
Of course the first alarm bell should be that what is a matter of archeology is going to a journal in geology. As the Sphinx debate alternative explanations to observed "irregularities" that still result in the original conclusions still being valid.
The second alarm bell is the wikipedia entry on Scientific Research Publishing which indicates the publisher has a multitude of problems:
copyright violations, padded and inaccurate editorial boards, and accepted a paper created by a random text generator.
The final nail is that there is no clear connection to any academic institution for what is a very young (2007) publisher who is in China. I have found even the scholarly publications out of China (like Ingle's Endodontics) to have example of less then sterling research. "In the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection..." claims the 2002 edition...despite peer reviewed sources presenting focal infection as a viable theory clear into the 1950s. In fact, works published just a few years later (Carranza's clinical periodontology (2006), and Textbook of Endodontology (2009)) as well as their own 2002 Essentials of oral medicine proved Ingle's Endodontics was spouting nonsense. When your scholarly publisher puts out two books the same year that say the opposite thing...you have a major problem.
Compare that to the Archaeological Institute of America which published two articles on the issues James Ossuary had founded in 1879 and got its Congressional Charter in 1906 or the Israeli Antiquities Authority which as the Israel Department of Antiquities dates all the way back to the founding of Israel in 1948.
The Open Journal of Geology journal is clearly a vanity publication and any article it produces is a joke.
...
I have watched what wikipedia allows as a "reliable source" degrade to the point it is a joke. If you look at the reference you will see the highly questionable Open Journal of Geology being used as a source. That abomination is reliable?!? What are they smoking over there?!? What is freaking next using tabloids?!?
---------
In terms of Christian related articles wikipeida is a bad joke and seems to get worse with each year
The claim of consistency in the article isn't even valid.
Pliny the Younger ONE letter (not letters plural) only talks about "Christians" praying to a Christ as if to a god. Even the Christians themselves admit that as many as two other people had tried to assume the title of 'Christ' by this time: Dositheos the Samaritan and Simon Magus. So there is NOTHING to show this Christ is Jesus and NOT remnants of Dositheos or Simon Magus groups or some other guy that used the title Christ.
The claim ANY part of the Testimonium Flavianum is valid is so full of logic tap dancing that it might as well be a Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers routine. The James-Jesus passage has similar problems. Why did every Christian who bothered to write anything put James the Just's death near 69 CE when Josephus put the death of this James in 62 CE some 7 years earlier. In fact, Christians when as far as to say that James the Just had been informed of Peter's death which supposedly happened no earlier then 64. Little issue of James having a serious case of DEAD for 2 years there guys.
Even if genuine Tacitus likely got his information from the Christians directly or via Pliny the Younger. And if Tacitus in 109 CE knew this much about Christians why would Pliny be asking Trajan on how to deal with them in 112 CE? We know that Pliny the Younger was good friends and regularly corresponded with BOTH Tacitus and Suetonius. He could have asked either of them for information on how to deal with them and not bothered the Emperor.
Piltdown Man had less holes then this nonsense!
. 
