Scholarship and public benefit:
As a social science PhD student I frequently encounter discussions about the need for "public scholarship" in the discipline. Often these discussions highlight the importance of publishing in non-academic forums that can benefit the public. My understanding is that such forums might include more traditional online media but the focus is usually on freely available and accessible works published, for example, on institutional or self-hosted blogs or sites like Medium.
The question:
Instead of listing publicly available non-academic writing on a CV among traditional publications, it seems reasonable to include it elsewhere, e.g. with other volunteer work. Would you find it justifiable if, for example, a student of economics or mathematics or linguistics who regularly contributed to related SE sites listed that contribution on a CV (under volunteer work or elsewhere) as an example of scholarly work with a public benefit? Or perhaps the more relevant question: would you anticipate that colleagues who are not familiar with/frequent contributors to SE would find this a reasonable and even compelling inclusion?
The context:
I don't recall seeing volunteer work listed on full-length academic CVs, but I know that CVs for some grant applications have space for it. I ask this primarily because I've never been in the position of reviewing CVs for (academic) job applications or funding requests, so I don't have much of an idea what's convincing or relevant versus what comes off as BS or fluff.
Non-duplication:
The question I'm posing is related to this one about SO/SE reputation but sufficiently different that it is not addressed by answers there. My question isn't about reputation per se but rather participation generally, especially in the eyes of CV reviewers who may have no idea what SE is and what "reputation" means on the site. This question about communicating SE achievements on a CV is also vaguely similar, but the longer answer there focuses on SE's metrics and answers unrelated to "scholarly" output (e.g. questions about working conditions, rather than answers related to the subject matter of one's discipline). I'd also note that those questions were posed 9-10 years ago, and in the intervening time there have presumably been changes in how people view the academic and professional relevance of online, non-academic publications.
What most substantially sets my question apart from others relates to its concern with framing SE contribution as publicly available scholarly output—in anticipation, say, of a CV reviewer who wonders, "What work have you done that's related to your research but has had a benefit for people outside the university sphere?"
