Edit: Wikipedia solves this problem currently with disambiguation pages. Those would become useless once they hit a certain size.
Thus, assuming no vandals or spammers ever create pages, you have very many pages created, and not so many people available to check and maintain those pages. Over the years spammers and vandals insert some changes. Or the information just becomes out of date.
So, now someone has to pay to store and host this stuff, which is not ever used by anyone, and which is out of date or full of links to handbags and shoes and medication, or with "BOB IS GAY LOLOLOLOL".
Would you trust wikipedia as much if it had a page for your neighbor's dog?
Why wouldn't I?
Plus, as long as they maintain the "no original research" rule and the citation requirement, this isn't even a potential problem.
> Plus, as long as they maintain the "no original research" rule and the citation requirement, this isn't even a potential problem.
Thousands of articles are published everyday. Its not difficult to get in one. So and so got an honorable mention at the town's local pet show.
The users want it to be different, the users want Inclusionism. It's going to happen, with them or with whatever comes after them.
Wikipedia is better off getting in front of that parade and leading it rather than being run over by it.