I agree, Kenneth!
To put it perhaps even more simply, you can't even talk about the quality of a profile unless and until it actually exists.
Another thing to consider is that - theoretically - there are only just so many profiles to create. Undoubtedly, WikiTree has less than a percent of the ideal - the ideal being a profile exiting for everybody who has ever lived within recorded history. But if WikiTree were to grow substantially in the decades to come, eventually "quantity" wouldn't even be a thing anybody talks about any more.
That being said, there's kind of a false dichotomy about "quantity". The way I look at it, if you create a profile for John Smith, without any additional information, like birth or death years and places, of his parents, siblings, or children, then you haven't created a legitimate profile at all - it's just junk. Even an unsourced profile needs to have sufficient identifying information to tell you exactly who you're actually writing about. If I'm not mistaken, WikiTree has no mechanism to get rid of profiles for such "phantoms".
Even a completely unsourced profile can be remedied - usually easily - if there's at least enough information to identify who the person is. It's of ZERO quality, as far as sourcing goes, but is not harmful at all, really, as long as it represents a real, identifiable person. Sources can always be added.
So the problem isn't "quantity", at all. It's about what I'm calling "phantoms". That is, it's about profiles that cannot be associated with a real person, and that's actually a "quality" issue.
In other words, it isn't about how MANY unsourced profiles get created, it's about all the profiles - regardless of how many - that are of such poor quality that they are useless junk. "Quantity vs Quality" isn't real - it's all really about having a minimum quality to all profiles, where the quality is judged by more than just whether or not there are sources.