While it's really good to see that you care about helping people find high-impact jobs inside or outside of EA, I don't think this idea is likely to work.

Creating a high-quality impact analysis for any given job is very difficult and time-consuming. Doing so for many different jobs in different fields would be nearly impossible; I'm not aware of any crowdsourced resources, even outside of EA, that routinely tackle problems of that caliber.

(Yes, Wikipedia and StackExchange are great, but Wikipedia mostly copies and aggregates content from elsewhere, while StackExchange users have access to the formidable tools of disciplines like mathematics and computer programming. Impact analysis is a much newer field with fewer tools, and requires many different approaches depending on what you want to analyze.)

Consider, for example, this 80,000 Hours post on how many lives a doctor might expect to save. (Note that this post may not reflect 80K's current thinking, since it came out seven years ago.) They do come up with a number, but it relies on lots of loose estimates and assumptions, and applies only to an "average" doctor (which isn't much help if you're deciding between dermatology, brain surgery, and earning-to-give at a bank). And of course, saving lives/QALYs isn't the only way a job can have an impact, so even this time-consuming 80K analysis is only the beginning of what you might want to produce for this single, broad career path.

Of course, it's probably better to have the 80K analysis than nothing. But I think "doctor" is one of the easiest professions to think about in this way, because there are lots of doctors who do very similar things. Something like "work in the EU commission" would be much harder to analyze.