The word fact implies that they have been verified, and attributed at least to some faction that can be responsible for what they say (e.g. to take the heat for it off Consumerium Governance Organization in case of a lawsuit). It does not imply that what is said is true or that anyone likes it. It implies that some group takes responsibility for stating it and no other group has taken responsibility for disputing it. That's all it means.
Like all facts, it has to be subject to some conceivable form of disproof to be accepted as a fact. That is, there must be some known way to dispute and remove the fact, attribute it only to one faction, or otherwise make a statement that it is only one group's opinion.
- If it is, it appears only as Consumerium:Criticisms of X or Consumerium:Praise for X which might be reduced to a score for purposes of the Consumerium buying signal and only appear in detail for those with appropriate access devices, i.e. not a worn device where display space is limited.
If disputing facts is too easy, funded trolls from bad companies will pour in, dispute everything bad, and there will be no negative facts no matter how bad a company or person is. If disputing facts is too hard, there will be lawsuits against the Consumerium Governance Organization for publishing libel pit or echo chamber comments. Projects like Wikipedia face these all the time, and they are not directly threatening to anyone's business, as Consumerium will be. So striking this balance and having a clear idea of what consensus is matters a great deal. Our wiki management will mostly be about this.
So, what is the consensus between factions? It is what none of them choose to risk their credibility to dispute. If there is revert currency it is what none of them have bet it on by reverting. If there is only an informal system, it is what they are willing to let the outside world sue them for (unless the Consumerium Governance Organization assumes this risk which seems unwise).