Thanks for the effort.
In my opinion, it is kind of ugly, both for being on the forum which is bringing confusion with dates and so on, and in the format, even if I saw the effort with toggle lists and co.
I can understand that one wants to have a linear/hierarchical view of everything, but I think the wiki is more about having some articles and a search engine, starting with little, then links added to make shortcut as it grows.
I think we can find some pages giving some collections of links to other pages as you did, but it should not be expected to be exhaustive and should remain readable in a few minutes without having to read the linked articles (or worse to open some hidden toggles content).
I was more thinking into a wikipedia style wiki, using for example mediawiki as wiki engine with WYSIWYG and a simple summary of main parts to know where we are in the page.
Maybe a graph view could be integrated to innovate a bit (see Wiki Graph)
I disagree with @Windy_Skies when he says somewhere a wiki has to be documented and should not contain original work. A wiki is only a collaborative tool. But I agree for an encyclopedia like wikipedia, even if I think bringing things together is an original work.
Maybe the easiest way would be to gather our forces on an existing wiki and to share here for example the start of a new page that we could crowdfill. Wikipedia is a bureaucracy right now (and might not be suited), but I found this one Introduction to Airborne Wind Energy - energypedia. But maybe you have other ideas ?