"Wiki," as you call it, is free to disagree. Louis Feldman of Yeshiva University, who is widely considered the greatest living scholar on Flavius Josephus has this to say:
It's very interesting that there is one other account which, if it is authentic, does deal with the crucifixion. And that is by the Jewish historian Josephus. The question is whether Josephus really wrote it. And I've written about that, and I've come to the conclusion that he couldn't have written it, certainly in the form that we have it, because Origen, the Christian church father, at one point says that Josephus didn't recognize that Jesus was the Christos.
If you don't know who Origen was, i suggest that you educate yourself. The most important collector of christians texts, and in particular the writings of Origen at the end of the third cedntury and the beginning of the fourth century was Pamphilus of Caesarea. He was the friend and mentor of Eusebius of Caesarea, erstwhile Bishop and author of the Nicene creed. He is also known as Eusebius Pamphili because of his well-known devotion to Pamphilus. There is absolutely no mention of these passages in Josephus until Eusebius makes claims about them--i personally suspect that Eusebius is the author of the interpolations. Feldman says that no author mentions these passages until Eusebius. Feldman also notes that Origen's comments of Josephus' attitude toward Jesus only appear in the writings of Eusebius. Finally, Feldman notes that the interpolation which is the so-called Testimonium Flavinium
) breaks the narrative on Pilate, and is written in a first person style that Josephus used nowhere else in his writings
The Cambridge History of Judaism
quotes Feldman as follows:
“We may remark here on the passage in Josephus which has occasioned by far more comment than any other, the so-called Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. XVIII. 63 - 4) concerning Jesus. The passage appears in all our manuscripts; but a considerable number of Christian writers - Pseudo-Justin and Theophilus in the second century, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Orgen in the third century, and Methodius and Pseudo-Eustathius in the early fourth century - who knew Jeosphus and cited from his works do not refer to this passage, though one would imagine that it would be the first passage that a Christian apologist would cite. In particular, Origen (Contra Celsum 1.47 and Commentary on Matthew 10.17), who certainly knew Book 18 of the Antiquities and cites five passages from it, explicitly states that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as Christ. The first to cite the Testimonium is Eusebius (c. 324); and even after him, we may note, there are eleven Christian writers who cite Josephus but not the Testimonium. In fact, it is not until Jerome in the early fifth century that we have another reference o it.
The principal internal argument against the genuineness of the Testimonium is that it says that Jesus was the Christ, whereas Josephus, as a loyal Pharisaic Jew, could hardly have written this. To be sure, there was several claimants to the status of Messiah in this era, and those who followed them were not read out of the Jewish fold; but in view of the fact that Josephus nowhere else uses the word Christos (except in referring to James, the brother of Jesus, Ant. XX.200) and that he repeatedly suppresses the Messianic aspects of the revolt against Rome because of the association of the Messiah with political revolt and independence, it would seem hard to believe that he would openly call Jesus a Messiah and speak of him in awe. The fact that Jerome (De viris illustrious 13) read that ’he was believed to be the Christ (credebatur esse Christus) would suggest that his text differed from ours. Another objection to the authenticity of the passage is that it breaks the continuity of the narrative, which tells of a series of riots. Those, such as Eisler, who regard the passage as interpolated, suggest that the original spoke of the Christian movement as a riot.
I have also read that Feldman did a survey of mondern scholars' texts on Joesephus in which he states that more than 80% of Josephus scholars consider the passages to be in part or entirely interpolations. However, in searching online this morning (and wasting far too much of my time), i have not found a reference which i can link for you, so i won't insist upon it.
Ask yourself how a faithful Pharisee like Josephus could have claimed that your boy Jesus was the messiah, and yet remained a confessional Jew? How could he have believed that an not
have converted to christianity?