The ACA data base is an excellent resource. My comment about accuracy etc doesn’t imply that it is inaccurate, it merely makes the point that routes that are added are not checked so no one knows for sure what is accurate [there is of course always that disclaimer about any climbing info]. I would hope that this is not the case with printed club guides. Additionally when a new printed guide book comes out everyone buys it in a rush and quickly starts pointing out what is missing or wrong. However, I believe that people who have made the effort to put routes on the ACA site are likely to be very knowledgeable about the area they are inputting and the information accurate. Who else would bother?
My point with the VCC is that for years its guidebooks have been the comprehensive record of climbing in the State. In theory a guide book editor was selected for their knowledge of the particular climbing area being covered and the finished product accepted as definitive. But there is no requirement when adding or updating a cliff to ACA to add anything other than your favourite routes or your own new routes. If the VCC had such a site they could try to find people who would be responsible for maintaining a particular cliff or area and keeping it comprehensive. [And yes I would volunteer to do this for cliffs I know well].
OT - I agree with Wollemi that Wikipedia is a great resource particularly on more specialized topics. The sort of person who is going to put on a separate detailed article with photos for every Russian Armoured Car of WWII is probably the worlds leading expert in that area and you can trust what they are saying. As I said earlier, who else would bother?