[chc]

I think the problem is that the entries are very low-quality and are being produced in such great quantities that it will be hard for anyone to turn them into passable articles.

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a collection of all the factual information it gather. You or I might wish for it to be one, but that isn't what its creators mean for it to be. Each individual article is expected to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for relevance and to have some minimal level of quality. If it isn't possible to write a good, encyclopedic article on a topic, Wikipedia's stance is generally that it should be deleted (or, if the article is just overly specific and the information is relevant to a broader topic, the article might be incorporated into a section in a more general article).

[aninhumer]

I think these stubs have the benefit of reducing the barrier to entry for future contributors. If I search for something and find a stub, I can easily throw in even one sentence, and the article is incrementally improved. Whereas if there's no article, I am much less inclined to make a new one.

[kevinchen]

Exactly: creating a new Wikipedia page is pretty intimidating because most people do not understand WP's template system or how to make an infobox.