As a non-profit, it would still need to breakeven. So far, it hasn't demonstrated this ability, so arguing that its problems stem from pressure by investors to make outsized returns seems weak. (And the article even admits that Twitter's problems aren't all about investor pressure.)
Which would require a very different cost structure from the Twitter of today. Not impossible perhaps but certainly a fundamental change. <$100m annual expenses for Wikimedia vs. $2b, so about 25x. Of course, some of those expenses are cost of sales and others could be cut in a more streamlined non-profit but it's a big difference today.
