There's an argument for not-for-profit or low income organisations that they rely heavily on lower wages, volunteering, etc. as excessive employment costs put the organisation in financial jeopardy, thereby people's jobs.

Not sure how Wikipedia is in this situation, but have seen demands of unions lead to redundancies before, simply because revenue was already very thinly stretched. The personal experiences, this has been in education and not-for-profit industries (health, rescue, and homeless support). If donations don't come in well enough, the people the organisation helps suffer first, then it's layoffs, lest the organisation and its support for people may go under.

It can be a very different situation to the usual for-profit groups. People there are meant to understand it isn't about their income, it's about helping others knowing that you're filling a service that states don't help with. If it is difficult, they need to find work elsewhere and not take money that is meant to go toward a cause that helps many.

That's all I can think of for those 14. Otherwise, you're right. They could well be fuckwits holding onto a good thing they got going higher up. I can't think of any other reason based on my experiences.