I would be strongly opposed to such a move. Paying people to edit (especially the WMF paying people!) would create many more problems than it could solve. It would create a privileged, select group of editors supported by the WMF who would feel "above" unpaid editors. How would the WMF choose who start paying? How would they choose who to stop paying if people misbehave or abuse their power or just don't edit enough? Would everyone be paid the same? By the edit? Some people can rack up thousands of bot edits fixing grammar; others write a whole article in a single edit. Both improve Wikipedia. How much is each worth in $? It would inevitably lead to accusations of bias in every direction. And finally it would poison the relationship between the WMF and every editor who wasn't paid.

No, Wikipedia is a volunteer project and should stay that way. People should, and do, edit Wikipedia because they find it fun and gratifying. It's a hobby, and it's not for everyone, and that's ok. No hobby is.

What the WMF should do is keep improving the Wikimedia software and systems that make editing easier, more effective, and more fun. Getting rid of bugs and structural frustrations, building tools to help manage the endless meta-discussions and tasks that editors do, etc. They do this work already, but they could be spending more money on it. There are editor-reported bugs on Wikipedia that have been open for years - big important ones!

The smoother and easier editing Wikipedia is, the more people will edit and stick around - in the end, the WMF should be focusing on improving the editing experience in every way except paying people to edit. That would open a massive can of worms and result in the collapse of the project.