The main concern Wikipedia has with notability is that if you don't have reputable secondary source writing about the topic, then you won't have references for any claims in the article. People just starting adding things that they know, or that "everyone knows".

When people disagree about content, Wikipedia always falls back to just reflecting what reliable sources says. And if they disagree, people can always collaborate to try to give due weight to both viewpoints.

But if there are no reputable sources that have already written about the subject, articles risk becoming someone's personal blog about their favorite topic. The notability criteria isn't a bar about what's important enough or 'deserves' a Wikipedia page, it's a super practical matter about verifiability, content disputes, and generally just being on solid ground if any claim is challenged.

There are many practical reasons to limit the scope:

* keeping at least minimum quality standards

* avoiding abuse by storing your files disguised as some "knowledge". At some scale the organization is not able to check even for a trivial instance of abuse.

* abuse legal problems by publishing illegal content (again, nobody will be able to do even basic checks if there's no limit)

* if anything goes, you get limited by physical needs like storage

> If you must, layer curation of what is notable on top of that.

Wikipedia is the curation. Store the non-curated data elsewhere.