I think protecting commons relies on many things. I like Lessig’s framework from Code and Code 2.0 and think it applies here: norms, laws, physical architecture, and the market. Norms could possibly cover your questions about knowledge and engagement but as you rightly pointed out, that’s not the only dimension. Norms can also cover education and advocacy, to what I think you were referring when you mention “mob policing”. Nothing is stopping the fine folks at Creative Commons from undertaking compliance actions like the Software Freedom Law Center does for the GPL. To date, they have not, relying more on communication and outreach. The fact that commons persist and thrive with different mixtures of those four factors doesn’t make them anomies.
Nowhere did I suggest any sort of exclusivity for participation or upkeep of commons. I also think you are reading way too much into my urgings for commoners to learn more about the commons in which they participate. I personally do what I can to answer questions put to me about the commons I know something about, like FLOSS and CC. I don’t think the fact someone has to ask about some part of the licensing means that somehow the license is less effective for them.
My intent in discussing the pseudocommons was to identify a particular antipattern. I think you’ve strayed well past that at the expense of further understanding examples of the antipattern. I will undoubtedly re-visit more aspects of commons as I continue my reading, providing more specific aspects we can discuss further.