Clinamen

I've been kind of (not kind of...I've been struggling) with how to ground the dissertation chapter I'm currently working on. It's about how Wikipedia refigures intellectual property. This, in itself, is not a new insight. However, I'm hoping I can open up some new questions by bringing a Levinasian/Derridan ethics to conversations about intellectual property. The general thrust of the argument:

Wikipedia offers a kind of hospitality that a print encyclopedia does not; This hospitality means that it's difficult for anyone to claim ownership over the text (Wikipedia is a commons); A textual commons implicitly (or, possibly, explicitly) recognizes the primacy of the Other in any writing situation. That is, it recognizes that I am not the source of my text and that I cannot lay claim to it. It is a citation of previous texts, and it will be taken up by others and used in different ways. The origin of "my" text is in now way "me."

Now, I'm starting to think that a way to ground this theoretical discussion is in a comparison of Wikipedi and Larry Sanger's Citizendium project. Citizendium requires users to "fess up" and give their real names - no pseudonyms. One way that Citizendium sets itself apart from Wikipedia is by calling itself "Wikipedia for grown-ups":

We have virtually no vandalism, and very few of the "difficult" sorts who are constantly pushing their own idiosyncratic points of view. Several people, independently, have said that we're "Wikipedia for grown-ups." That's because we require real names, at least a brief (and accurate) bio, and the contributor's agreement to follow our Statement of Fundamental Policies.

This "grown-up" policy links "real names" with responsibility. If I own up with my identity and tell Citizendium my name, I am cleared to contribute. I am considered responsible, grown up, trustworthy. This notion is grounded in a property scheme rather than a commons scheme. A property scheme doesn't necessarily have anything to do with money, but it does link commodities (texts) with owners. In this case, giving your name attaches you to your edits. You own them in a certain way. No, you can't claim any copyright, but you are responsible for them. The policy implies that Wikipedia edits, because they can be anonymous (though, Wikiscanner should show us that there's no such thing as pure anonymity) are irresponsible.

This use of the term "grown-up" is interesting. It implies that owning up and coming clean are adult things to do. But what if owning up and coming clean are merely a way of circumscribing responsibility? What if they are just a way to say "this is what I am responsible for...right here...my edits...nothing else"? How responsible is that? How grown-up is it?