Your premise is fundamentally wrong, you DO see stub articles you aren't searching for, that's actually the BIGGEST issue with them. If you have articles literally nobody wants to read on wikipedia, eventually quite a number of people are going to navigate to them accidentally over the years, and get annoyed. The more useless articles they are, the worse and worse this issue becomes, because you can only index and filter SO well.
The second issue is that if you scale the amount of articles without scaling the amount of editors you reduce the overall quality of the articles. Quality is ensured by having more editors relative to the amount of articles, removing standards to increase the number of articles relative to the number of editors invariably degrades quality, meaning even when somebody DOES find the right article it's inevitably going to be of lower quality.
Just mindlessly adding information without standards isn't helpful, or useful, it's hoarding and it's corrosive. It has nothing to do with maintaining a useful body of knowledge for people to reference, it's a problem maintainers of a body of knowledge have to fight an eternal and ultimately losing war against for as long as they can.
The second issue is that if you scale the amount of articles without scaling the amount of editors you reduce the overall quality of the articles. Quality is ensured by having more editors relative to the amount of articles, removing standards to increase the number of articles relative to the number of editors invariably degrades quality, meaning even when somebody DOES find the right article it's inevitably going to be of lower quality.
Just mindlessly adding information without standards isn't helpful, or useful, it's hoarding and it's corrosive. It has nothing to do with maintaining a useful body of knowledge for people to reference, it's a problem maintainers of a body of knowledge have to fight an eternal and ultimately losing war against for as long as they can.