I'm a librarian, but I'm going to talk about what are sometimes referred to as the LAM institutions: libraries, archives and museums. There is no such thing as "definitive" (I will leave it at that, I'm not a historiographer) but there are institutions that are "repositories." There are six levels of collecting done by libraries, (which the Library of Congress defines to include archival collections), numbered from 0 to 5. Many libraries collect certain subjects at level 4 ("a collection that includes the major published source materials required for dissertations and independent research") or 5 ("a collection which, so far as is reasonably possible, includes all significant works of recorded knowledge"). The Library of Congress is one, but there are many others around the US and the world, both run by the national governments of various states as well as by public and private universities. These subjects may be specific (Haverford College maintains a level 5 collection on American Quakerism), less specific (the University of Illinois maintains a level 5 collection on Illinois) or extremely broad (the Library of Congress maintains a level 5 collection on the United States, and a level 4 collection on most other topics).
The goal here is not to present a definitive history of any topic, but to allow that history to be written in the future. Events now will be contextualized by future events (As the well-known but not completely accurately translated Zhou Enlai quote says: it is "too soon to say" what the impact of the French Revolution was).
The role of LAM institutions (because objects in museums present information in much the same way as text in archives and libraries does) in the present is to allow that contextualization to occur with as many perspectives as possible. By presenting the maximum number of perspectives, we hope to allow a history to emerge from the mass of present-day materials that are being produced. Any value judgment placed on one event, voice or primary source as it occurs or is created can and necessarily will distort understanding by future observers. By value judgment I don't necessarily mean "good" or "bad," but also "important" and "not important." These institutions attempt to avoid that problem through sheer volume. Providing as much documentation as resources allow to future generations is the only way for anyone to understand the present in the future.
Additional sources:
Libraries in the Western World, Johnson, 1965
Rare Books and Special Collections, Berger, 2014
Developing and Maintaining Practical Archives, Hunter, second edition 2003
Library: An Unquiet History, Battles, second edition 2015
"To the Citizens of the United States of America", Peale, 1792, in Museum Studies: An Anthology of Contexts, ed. Carbonell, 2012
The short answer to your question is no, because such a endeavor is not really possible.
The long answer has to do with the word "definitive". Such a word cannot be applied to a single historical source, because it's not possible to incorporate every perspective into a single source. Whenever a historian constructs a source, they are making deliberate choices about what to incorporate and what to leave out. This is not an exercise in academic dishonesty (i.e. leaving out relevant evidence which undermines your points); this is simply the result of distilling something readable out of a mountain of information. At some point in the research process, a decision has to be made by the historian as to what they want to look at.
If we consider a hypothetical knowledge repository about the George Floyd protests, at what point can we say that this source is definitive? How many perspectives do you need to collect. Are you collecting information about the personal experiences of individual police officers and protestors? What about all of the government documents and deliberations which are currently not visible to the public? The protests are global; how much detail do you need to include about each of those protests? The Turkish government has criticized the teratment of journalists during the protests; do we need to contextualize that by discussing the creeping authoritarianism of the Erdoğan regime and the growing tensions between the United States and its NATO ally?
And that is just a very small percentage of the questions which would need to be asked about the George Floyd protests. To createa a "definitive snapshot of the current day" is a endeavor beyond the scope of any one project.
Time informs perspective. Something that you, the creator of this respository of knowledge, deem to be unimportant and not worth including in your "definitive" respository may turn out to be important. This is like the reverse of the logical fallacy "hingsight bias". Historians need to be careful about assumming that what is visible to them through hindsight was also visible to people in the time they are studying. If we flip that around, what is important to you today may not be what is considered important or worth studying by future historians.
The closest thing to what you're referring to might be Wikipedia. Since anyone can add to it, it's much easier for knowledge to be accumlated from a range of perspectives. But if you visit the TALK page of any article, you will see vast debate about what should and should not be included in an article.
The other word that you use is much more appropriate: snapshot. Whenever historians and archivists collect information (or objects) for the future, they are ultimately collecting just a snapshot of life in the period in which they live. It will be up to future historians to construct histories using the resources available to them.
The FAQ has a section about the process of perserving and constructing history. You can find those here.