Wikijokers are often no different from wikiauthors.
The article has little to do with what you go on to opine.
And as far a referencing goes there is nothing less reputable than a Wikipedia page. I enjoy the ease of access myself but imagine handing a paper to your professor with nothing but Wikipedia article as citation, you would fail.
I don't really understand how your discourse connects to the idea of a philosophical separation of thought and reality in any meaningful way.
I feel that this book is really talking about the feeling of knowing, not the inputs for thought in any philosophical sense.
I'm sorry I posted a link to a philosophy site, the only thin
connection was the aspect of emotion mentioned.
I'm sorry I so publicly brought to your attention something that is in your opinion is so trivial as a posted legitimacy banner discussion of the accuracy and referencing of the article.