Educational technologists may well at this point wonder if “remix” is just a souped-up version of the learning objects vision that absorbed so much energy from so many talented people, with mostly disappointing results. In 2005, Susan Metros suggested in an EDUCAUSE Review piece that “learning objects have not fulfilled their promise of transforming education,” and little has changed since then to contradict that assertion. Why might a culture of remix take hold when the learning object economy never did? For one thing, the relationship between standards and practices is inverted. Proponents of learning objects, with the noblest of misguided intentions (this author was one of them), went at the problem of promoting reuse by establishing a complex set of interoperability standards and then attempting to convince the wider community to radically change their practices to meet the standards. Users were asked to take on complex and ill-defined tasks in exchange for an uncertain payoff — not surprisingly, most of them passed. Meanwhile, in the wider web world, millions of webloggers were gleefully sharing their materials and forming fluid ad hoc communities of interest without any central coordination or organizational incentives whatsoever. The practices were easy to adopt, the benefits were immediate, and the interactions were fun. Around the same time “users will never add metadata” was becoming a mantra at learning object planning meetings (again, this author was there for many of them), and most LO repositories were floundering, resource sharing sites like del.icio.us and Flickr were enjoying phenomenal growth, with their user communities contributing heaps of useful metadata via simple folksonomy-oriented tags.