Daniel Quinn, February 2025
All users of the World Ribus database should be aware that data published on Wikipedia is unreliable and often inaccurate due to systemic issues with how the platform operates.
Reliability and Accuracy Issues
Many highly accurate elevation figures found within the World Ribus database will differ from the erroneous data found on Wikipedia. This is a result of unevenly enforced Wikipedia policies, which prefer a government-issued figure that can be decades old rather than a recent update based on meticulous research of Lidar data and/or a modern survey conducted by independent researchers. In other words, government surveys are seen as more reliable than those conducted by independent experts, regardless of the level of professionalism. This means accuracy is sacrificed in order to abide by rules that were written with source reliability in mind but do not reflect modern technology usage. Several well-established independent surveyors have contributed important work to refining topographic information, yet Wikipedia dismisses their research outright.
In effect, Wikipedia often actively peddles misinformation despite being notified of major updates, leading to time-consuming battles with ignorant editors. At the time of writing, Wikipedia editors have reverted changes confirming the fifth most prominent peak in the world and the true highest point of Colombia. A high-quality survey conducted in 2024 was dismissed as inferior by these editors. Given this climate, there is little point in attempting to improve Wikipedia’s topographic data, as leading editors prefer outdated, incorrect figures that have long been superseded. The only way this situation will change is if Wikipedia updates its policies to reflect technological advancements or if government bodies actively survey mountains—something that rarely happens.
Systemic Bias and Hostility Toward Independent Research
The Ribus database is among the best sources of elevation and prominence data currently available, yet Wikipedia editors overwhelmingly belittle and dismiss the project. One editor described the topographic research community as a “walled garden of hobbyists” and “of no use to us,” an insult that misrepresents the exceptional work done over many years with an incredible degree of accuracy. In contrast to the notion of a walled garden, World Ribus welcomes contributions from anyone suggesting justifiable amendments to the database.
Another editor reverted updates that included missing prominence figures and labeled this edit as “decontamination,” effectively accusing World Ribus of being a contaminant. This attitude is widespread across Wikipedia and illustrates a major systemic flaw: allowing non-experts to override high-quality research simply because it does not fit rigid, outdated policies.
In January 2025, one editor nominated the (now deleted) Ribu page for deletion—seemingly out of malice. Indeed, much of the behaviour on Wikipedia can be explained through psychological theories, particularly Zimbardo’s infamous Stanford prison experiment of 1971, which had to be terminated early due to distressing behaviour by participants carrying out the roles of prison guards and prisoners. Despite presenting itself as an open platform, Wikipedia has a hierarchical structure of editors, many of whom appear to derive pleasure from policing and suppressing new contributions under the guise of “compliance.”
For instance, an editor with little knowledge of topographic research described World Ribus as “disreputable trash” without any repercussions. These interactions reveal a toxic culture of gatekeeping that undermines Wikipedia’s credibility as an open-source knowledge repository.
The Arbitrary Nature of Notability
Wikipedia’s notability guidelines are another major flaw. What is deemed “not notable” today can magically become so overnight if an article appears in a publication like The New York Times. The same information that was previously dismissed as “contamination” can be seen as authoritative simply due to media validation. The irony is that the project itself does not change—only the perception of it by Wikipedia editors who defer to media-approved sources.
Since 2009, the Ribus concept has been written about in numerous books, newspapers, magazines, and online articles in multiple countries — more than enough to establish notability. Yet, unless a high-profile journalist arbitrarily decides to write about it, it remains vulnerable to deletion. This reinforces the idea that Wikipedia is an extension of the deeply flawed media world, where PR, luck, and influence determine notability rather than quality or accuracy.
To illustrate this absurdity: had Wikipedia existed in their lifetimes, neither Vincent van Gogh nor William Blake would have had articles until years after their deaths, as they were not considered “notable” at the time. Had Van Gogh attempted to add an entry to promote his paintings, he would have been met with the same dismissive attitude many independent researchers face today. Wikipedia’s notability standards are not based on the intrinsic value of a topic, or data accuracy, but on arbitrary media validation. This is especially concerning when dealing with scientific measurements which are open to
amendment and refutation if better data comes to light.
A Future Beyond Wikipedia
As AI tools continue to advance, Wikipedia’s relevance may decline. Platforms like ChatGPT already recognise what a Ribu is and correctly identify the highest mountain in Colombia—while Wikipedia remains stuck with outdated information, conservative policies, and a culture of suppression.
The World Ribus database represents a significant step forward in topographic research, providing some of the most comprehensive and accurate elevation and prominence data available. Non-Wikipedia platforms interested in integrating this database are always welcome to collaborate with us. Unlike Wikipedia, World Ribus values accuracy, innovation, and transparency over rigid bureaucracy and outdated methodologies.