I still find it interesting though that the organisation attracts so many politicos. And as far as the Wikimedia Foundation's Strategy 2030 is concerned, it's absolutely relevant. A lot of people in the volunteer community felt that the result of the strategy discussions was kind of preordained, rather than a reflection of the community's will. ("By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us ..." etc.)

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/...

There is more indirect influence on content by the Wikimedia Foundation nowadays, where they fund community organizers to increase coverage in a particular topic area.

An early example that taught them how not to do this (as well as a clear example of undue donor influence) was the Belfer Center scandal:

https://thewikipedian.net/2014/04/02/bats-in-the-belfer-a-be...

That was a scandal only because the Wikipedia volunteer community paid attention.

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-paid-editing-scanda...

A more recent example that seems unobjectionable is this one:

https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/09/22/join-the-organizer-lab...

In that case I wish you luck in finding the right place to discuss it.