The argument presented by a scholarly edition can usually be traced to the vision of a single editor or a very small group of editors. But is it possible or even desirable for an edition to present multiple—perhaps competing—arguments? As lately conceived and practiced, the social edition promises to enable the presentation of differing interpretations and arguments,
prompting us to reconsider some of our fundamental ideas about the form and function of scholarly editions. This essay reflects on one particular aspect of scholarly editing—annotation—and examines some of the theoretical issues behind crowdsourcing annotations of a literary work.