[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience
Either way, instead of reifying the relevant facts and statistics and iterating on them (or upturning them when invalidated), we tend to debate them repeatedly, even over decades as manufacturing methods and trends in society change.
(this is me pining for a system like arguman[1] with the critical mass of wikipedia to help forge these debates into more reliable, long-term results)
You might be aware of it already, but just in case, the most progress I've seen in the area of web-based argument mapping has been Arguman ( https://github.com/arguman/arguman.org ). They're also following an open source model and there could be opportunities to co-operate and/or share ideas.
This dates back to 2014 where Turkey was still struggling with the aftermath of widespread civil unrest. The entire nation found itself highly polarized while debates were fueled with mutual anger and disbelief.
This is an "argument analysis platform", as they call it, and it is open source, too, maintained at https://github.com/arguman/arguman.org .
The basic premise is the construction of an argument map, "arguably" a common utility to practice critical thinking.
More info on that at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_map .
No idea how to install it, but take a look :)