I agree, Wikipedia is badly skewed on this, but it seems like they are
probably just following conventional thought on the issue. Which I feel
is coming around to be more widely accepted that there was no Jesus
as described in the gospels that started the early Christian church (though
it was a common Jewish name - Yeshua - at that time in history, and
there are a few other Yeshuas with messianic delusions described in
the talmud from around the same time).
They do have a “historicity of jesus” page, which at least has the following
info -
More recently Richard Carrier argues in his book On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, that there is insufficient Bayesian probability, that is evidence, to believe in the existence of Jesus. Furthermore, he argues that the Jesus figure was probably originally known only through private revelations and hidden messages in scripture which were then crafted into a historical figure, to communicate the claims of the gospels allegorically. These allegories then started to be believed as fact during the struggle for control of the Christian churches of the 1st century.[106] Philip R. Davies has opined that a recognition that the historicity of Jesus is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability[103] and R. Joseph Hoffmann at the Jesus Project noted that Jesus is getting more vague, ambiguous, and uncertain the more scholars study him, rather than the other way around.[116 
