When it comes to a CV, as with most things in academia, it's best to stick to form. Education, awards, publications, conference papers given, invited talks, departmental service, teaching experience, and possibly references and professional affiliations are just about all you should need. Anything superfluous will likely be misconstrued, ignored, or be perceived as padding. If you're applying for an academic position, keep it simple with only your most significant achievements, as people who look at CVs generally have to look at tons of them, and you won't do yourself any favors by being obscure. They also aren't professional recruiters and don't tend to love poring over CVs, so a standard form helps the evaluators get through this work more efficiently.
If you find you don't have enough things to put on your CV, I think it might just barely be okay to include a kind of "other projects" section in which you briefly discuss your involvement in this other work. But you are largely going to be evaluated on the basis of your own work, so it's hard to say what difference it will make. The CV is part of a nexus of relationships, references, and affiliations and won't stand entirely on its own. So it depends. If you worked on some important projects, perhaps you could ask one of your recommendation writers to mention the degree and quality of your involvement. These sorts of things can at least indicate collegiality, which is important.
As I'm sure you've done, you should look at other people's CVs for guidance and also visit with someone trained to help academics translate their experience into an effective document. My own CV had all the right components, but a counselor on staff at my university suggested I change the order of the sections and reformat it according to a different principle of emphasis and priority. That helped me a lot.
