Software is in a gray area right now. As more and more software is required for research, and as younger faculty who have numerous important software products join budget councils (tenure committees, etc.), then the respect for software artifacts will increase. Until people with little to no respect for software age off of these committees, it will be harder (or impossible) for software to contribute directly to tenure decisions at major research universities.
Of course, that's not necessarily enough for software to gain prominence either. Theoretically, the (hand/spreadsheet) calculations, theorems, and experiments in an article are verified in some form through the peer-review process. To date, outside of the statistics-using literature (maybe) where some venues require the publication of programs and data, codes aren't peer-reviewed or published in a traditional way. This gives software an uphill battle for prominence in the minds of tenure reviewers. Until your million-line Fortran simulation code has been peer reviewed, it's likely to remain a lesser contribution to tenure cases (if it gets added at all). I know some committee members who are trying to get software to count, but I haven't been around for discussions of how it might be peer reviewed or what the expectations would be.
The other things you mention (clubs, translations, SE, Wikipedia, etc.) are not classically peer reviewed and aren't creating new knowledge, so they aren't really relevant to tenure committees at research universities. You may find more interest in some of these other things at teaching-focused colleges and universities, but I have no experience with that.
Maybe my focus on tenure here is misguided, but it seems to be the driving force in what matters in academia. Everything else seems to be secondary (Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals, perhaps, also contributing highly). Interestingly, some of the things you mention, especially open source and highly used software, may help more with grants from government agencies. Their priorities are different and do drive incentives for academics. Fortunately, along with research products (peer reviewed articles) and teaching, grants do factor strongly into tenure decisions. Some of the other things you mention (alternative dissemination, etc) might factor into what NSF considers "broader impacts", but unless the focus of your grant is on these things specifically, the "intellectual merit" of your proposal will have much more weight among the reviewers of your grants.
I don't see much of this changing rapidly unless a department at a university makes a very public push to include some of these things in their tenure process and wins away some top-notch faculty doing it. If that were to happen (unlikely), other departments might be forced to follow along. The maverick department would have to have some tremendous steals and tremendous research wins over a sustained period to really have an effect, though.