Interesting question. I don't believe many Wikipedians are inherently bad, but they are all clearly motivated by a belief and an ideology that causes them frequently to skirt difficult moral issues. I'm sure many of us have been in the situation of believing fervently in the rightness of something and perhaps doing things we would have questioned in a less fervent state of mind, or after the event.
From reading their archives, it's clear that they are all passionately motivated by the 'free culture' belief, and mostly from an 'IT background'. That is, most of them don't have a background in the humanities but rather in engineering or computer science. Thus free culture means devising uploads and downloads etc for getting information available in one place on the web, onto Wikipedia or related projects. My research shows that most of Wikipedia began like this, in particular from the 'borrowing' of the Britannica 1911 edition from another site which had originally scanned it.
Anyway, as regards the members:
Roger Bamkin (chair) is one of those Wikipedian types that live in a small rural village many miles from civilisation (Rich Farmborough is another). Middle-aged, engineering background, pillar of the local community and one of those types who get onto every local community for fighting bypasses, organising local fetes, getting onto the council etc. Actually very valuable people to have in any community. I think a lot of Wikipedians are like this - the basement-dwelling teenage geek is a common stereotype, but does not universally represent the place. The middle-aged UK Wikipedians are more like the type who would have pottered around in their shed or the allotment 30 years ago, but the internet has replaced sheds for this demographic.
Martin Poulter. Graduated Oxford 1994 in philosophy and psychology, should have asked for a refund, then PhD university of Bristol 2003 - that's 9 years of doing PhD, still involved with the university, a bit of a perpetual student perhaps. Like many Wikipedians, motivation seems to be anti-Scientology. Has written article after article saying how very very bad scientology is. Is a member of the British Assocation for Sceptical Enquiry (as am I). 'Rational sceptics' are a big demographic of Wikipedia. I used to count myself one of them, but have handed in my card. Have no interest in the Western intellectual tradition, but rather (as a group) obsessed with pornography and 'pictures of penises want to be free'.
Chris Keating is a member of the Liberal Democrats - another UK Wikipedian 'marker' - so is James Forrester and Jonathan Cardy. Involved in professional fundraising, in which capacity he is also involved with Wikimedia UK. Possibly a fellow traveller, but given his education at Cambridge he could probably do financially better somewhere else, so I don't think money is a motivation.
Andrew Turvey and Michael Peel I don't know much about.
Richard Symonds has been covered enough in this forum I suspect. Unlike the others he is much younger and financial compensation may well be a motivation here. He earns about £25k at Wikimedia UK compared to zero before. Similarly I suspect for fellow travellers like Harry Mitchell. Thomas Dalton (Tango) I believe has a reasonably well paying job.
In summary, mostly middle England types who are motivated by an obsession or ideology, rather than fellow travellers or in it for the money.