A look at the state of Integral on Wikipedia

The internet's common denominator is the scientific-rational worldview.  There are plenty of techy guys surfing the webz during work all day that love to edit a bit of atheistic verbage to wiki articles that they see as new-agey/superstitions/religious BS (that I think Integral can easily come across as to these types).  

Should we saturate the wiki with Orange terms and arguments?  What angle should we do this at so they can maybe just add a bit of skepticism at the end?  Then again it is probably the Pluralistic Greens that are the ones that might really connect with the info--should we do it in their terms?  These people usually don't do that great with making content on the internet though--think holistic medicine or energy system or astrology websites (most look like they were made in 1998).

Sorry these thoughts aren't very coordinated, it's late :).  Also I'd love to help if I can find some spare time.  Don't know how well versed and ready with sources I am though :(.

--

Regarding those artists and musicians that are listed in Wikipedia under Integral Art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_art)--some of whom I am familiar with but none of whose works I can sear (see, hear) as being musically or artistically distinct to my eyar (eye, ear) from any other works of art or music to indicate that there is a "pattern" emerging in I-Integral music or art that one should look out for or as one would expect in a new art form, unless the only thing that we mean by "Integral Art" is

Integral art can be variously defined as art that reaches across multiple quadrants and levels, that transcends and includes all limited forms, interpretations, or perspectives, as the belief that every human being is creative and that art is integral to all human endeavours, or simply as art that was created by someone who thinks or acts in an integral way

which judging by the sound of it alone, is neither a musical or artistic definition at all that would suggest in any way that “Integral Art” is new form of musical or artistic expression made possible by a structural leap in consciousness into integral.  On the contrary—it sounds rather generic and appears to be a philosophical orientation or outlook in life shared among a select group of musicians and artists who subscribe to a certain school or “brand” of philosophical thought instead.  Judging strictly on the terminology and “buzzwords” utilized for defining “Integral Art” (along with those listed as “Integral Artists”)—I would venture to say that the shared commonality is that those who engage in such an art form subscribe to Wilberian capital I-Integral philosophy.  And combined with the fact that there does not appear to be any discernible musical, creative, or artistic pattern or undercurrent emerging among those artists, filmmakers, or musicians listed under Integral Art that are distinct from postmodernism of the ones recognizable (unless they are non-sarcastic, non-ironic, non-pluralistic, autonomous/autonomic and systemic "so maybe I-Integral art is autistic"), it is not a genuine artistic or musical expression or movement in the artistic or creative sense; only in the philosophical sense of subscribing to and/or endorsing the brand of Ken Wilber I-Integral philosophy.  Having recognized the same individuals repeatedly in association with Ken Wilber but not outside of this illustrious inner circle of I-Integral brand of Ken Wilber (and furthermore, having been exposed to a variety of works of music and art which have indeed broken the confines of the temporically-frozen three-dimensional "perspectival" and "multi-perspectival" spatiality and would therefore qualify in what I consider to be "new" and "integral" in the arts), one is left to wonder what truly defines “integral” in music or art or whether the parameters for defining “integral” are based superficially upon the creative artist endorsing the brand of Ken Wilber I-Integral school or product to “qualify.”  And having read Jean Gebser (on Ken Wilber's recommendation--ironically) prior to this discovery, it is difficult not to notice how unlike Wilber, Gebser actually went into amazing detail and breadth of knowledge in both the new art and music of the 20th century to demonstrate his competence to speak in both areas fluently irrespective of whether these composers or artists endorsed his particular “school” of “integral-aperspectival” eteology or not; and offered many references to “What is new?” and “What is integral?” in the arts and what is not, which Ken Wilber did not (except for what is not: which he defines as "the lying that is at the heart of postmodern art" as if to claim that he has access to verition, which he does not); which Gebser discovered were also changes that were occurring simultaneously across a variety of fields, disciplines, human endeavors and whatnot; yet evidently nothing that I-Integral theory can identify or spot.

I've been editing Wikipedia sense 2004. I think it is awe inspiring, and encourage any and everyone to make edits to improve its quality.

I think there is a important Wikipedia Guideline that anyone close to Integral who also wants to make Wikipedia edits on Integral's behalf should look over closely.

Wikipedia's policy regarding Conflicts of Interest. I'm surprised you didn't mention this when listing Wikipedia's requirements. I think it would be a highly important rule for an Integralist wanting to make edits on Integral content to be aware of.

From the Wikipedia COI Guideline page:

"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."