It seems like naive realism is often used as a term of abuse, including in the article. However, I don't think this position is justified and as wikipedia notes

It seems like naive realism is often used as a term of abuse, including in the article. However, I don't think this position is justified and as wikipedia notes [1], plenty of illustrious philosophers have defended this position (Among contemporary analytic philosophers who defended direct realism one might refer to, for example, Hilary Putnam, John McDowell, Galen Strawson, John R. Searle, and John L. Pollock.). I don't think defender of naive realism take it as "my ideas are always true" or "I am the center of the universe" (as the article seems to imply). Rather, I'd take it as saying an immediate perception can remain true even when one expands the discussion of reality in a number of ways. I can say: "there's a fence around that house" and that can remain basically true even in you expand the area and categories of reality considerably - if someone points to minute gaps in the fence, I'd note the effective definition of "fence around the house" would intuitively expand to "a configuration dense enough to help keep something out of the house", etc. The point isn't that there aren't level divisions in reality. The point is there isn't some magical/theological level that trumps every level of reality below it. Not accepting "Plato's Cave" or proving/asserting "we're not all brains in a vat" [Hilary Putnam]. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism