Why are you griping about GNOME and KDE here?
The "wontfix" tag is generally taken to mean that the bug is not a problem that needs to be fixed. This might arise because the submitter has been misled by poor documentation. More often it is because the submitter wants the software to behave differently from what it does at the moment (eg. "the flight simulator in OpenOffice Spreadsheet doesn't work").
If there is a lack of expertise, usually a "help"-type tag is used, never "wontfix". If "help" is unavailable or there is a lack of resources then the bug is generally just left open.
This is standard stuff in FOSS development.
If "wontfix" is being used entirely correctly, then all the number of "wontfix" bugs will do is reflect the number of bug submitters who are submitting bugs that aren't bugs in the first place. Thus, counting "wontfix" bugs tells you nothing useful; perhaps just the numbers of submitters who aren't paying attention.
Therefore nothing can really be concluded by comparing GNOME and KDE "wontfix" bugs.
A philosophy behind GNOME is that features are not added at the cost of usability. This is based on the idea that less complex software is easier to use. This will result in more "wontfix" bugs as developers decline to add new features. You are welcome to disagree with this philosophy. However, you can't draw any other conclusion about the quality of GNOME or KDE nor the attitude of their respective developers from this.
I do think you should be modded down: because you are offtopic, you don't understand what "wontfix" means, you draw flawed conclusions because of this and because your gripe is therefore entirely unfounded.