Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything.

You can get the SAME information from many other scholarly sites and articles. Wikipedia provides citations for a reason, so you can explore sources. This isn't a credible argument.

I think in the end this is a point of semantics after all. Traditionally speaking there is authorship for most of these books that has been agreed on for hundreds of years

Yeah, the authorship is unknown. Everyone agrees on that.

that some of this conventional wisdom has been or is in the process of being overturned

It is not. The Council of Nicea knew this around 1300 AD.

authorship is not relevant to the text except in very specific cases (Paul) it is not a salient point

I'm not sure where you are going with this. To say that authorship is irrelevant is like saying that it doesn't matter who wrote the first Superman comic. It speaks to the authority and the validity of the documents. You made the original claim that the authors were the guys named in the title of the gospels. That is a silly argument because those names are fictional. We don't know who they were.

They may have used aliases for political reasons, texts may have been edited in later centuries

The gospels have been edited thousands of times, and every version we uncover is different. That is why the Niceans needed to standardized their books and build the "official" versions - everything was a hodge-podge of material.

We know who wrote the books

We do not know who specifically wrote the books. Repeating that we do is not going to make it so.

This is not really a subject of controversy

It isn't. Biblical scholars have accepted the unknown authorship for hundreds of years. You're just a little late to the party I guess.

hen most people speak of the authors of Christianity they are speaking of Matt, Mark, Luke, and John, and Paul (and the other John who wrote revelation)

Which are made up names for the most part for unknown authorship. Please stop, you're just embarrassing yourself.