Matt and Ted's Excellent Adventure

[Dave the Cook]

Interpretations can very, of course, but I don't see any glee here, anyway. And it's not that we hold the New York Times to a higher standard -- we don't have to. We're simply asking that they hold themselves to the standard they claim for themselves. You won't find Times material on eGullet without its source being cited. (If you do find it -- or material from any outlet -- please report it immediately.)

If you dig a little deeper, you'll realize that are two related problems here, and they're not specific to the Times. The first problem is that the authors apparently didn't think of eGullet as a source, even though without it, it's possible that the article wouldn't even have been written. Had traditional media published the picture the authors described, you can bet that the source would have been named, or the passage would have been rewritten to eliminate the reference. The second problem is that the newspaper didn't apply its own ethical guidelines when the piece was edited. Again, it's hard to imagine that had the authors cited a cookbook as the source of the photograph, that the paper's fact-checking machinery wouldn't have sprung into motion as a matter of reflex. But apparently, saying you saw it on a website has the same effect on editors as mentioning that you heard a bird singing, or an idea sprang to mind while you were showering. It's unverifiable, it happens often -- it's not worth checking.

This is wrong. Even though it's just the web, people go to great lengths to write posts, to take pictures and format them. They write emotional, factual and thought-provoking articles for on-line magazines and blogs. And when another publication uses them, credit should be given.

Do New York Times writers lurk on eGullet? Of course they do. There's nothing wrong with that, though I find it disappointing. I'd like to see them posting instead.

[amytraverso]

The first problem is that the authors apparently didn't think of eGullet as a source, even though without it, it's possible that the article wouldn't even have been written. Had traditional media published the picture the authors described, you can bet that the source would have been named, or the passage would have been rewritten to eliminate the reference...

This is wrong. Even though it's just the web, people go to great lengths to write posts, to take pictures and format them. They write emotional, factual and thought-provoking articles for on-line magazines and blogs. And when another publication uses them, credit should be given.

Ok, let me be a little less reactive here...

I do understand the frustration. Someone did go to a lot of trouble to deliver a thorough, carefully written (even illustrated!) post, he was the first person to get the story, and he didn't get credit, and absolutely should have. And obviously that is happening a lot, and you should always reveal your sources.

At the same time, I do understand why there is some confusion about what, exactly, an online forum is. This is a young medium, with few editorial controls. You don't have to get editorial approval to submit an individual post here. There is no fact-checking process (and yes, there was that Jayson Blair episode at the NYT, but still...). So I can see how someone might view a forum -- out of confusion, or laziness, or opportunism -- as the online equivalent of a conversation heard in passing, rather than as an attributable "source." I believe eGullet is a source, but people are still figuring out what it is, and it seems to exist in a sort of gray zone between publication and chat board. Still, I agree that if someone gets a story idea from a news item that is "broken" here, that should be noted.

As for my comment about being "gleeful," perhaps I exaggerate. I do think that in the virtual world, people feel less constrained by social niceties. And a more competitive.

Perhaps I'm not critical enough of my colleagues, but I feel so painfully aware of the deadline pressures and unrelenting pace of publishing, that when I hear about a screw-up, it's much more "there but for the grace of god..." for me.

Except for exploding recipes, which are kind of funny...

[balmagowry]

True. (:giggle:)

But now I'm starting to get it. I have to admit I used to think that Fat Guy maybe went a little overboard on the evangelizing side of his mission - the various exhortations to get the word out, educate the public, get eG recognized in all sorts of venues, and so on - and that the celebrations of eGullet sightings-and-citings were maybe a little over-the-top, a trifle unseemly. But no. Now I see. You are entirely right in saying that it's a young medium and that a lot of people who use eG posts as a resource haven't gotten the message, haven't figured out that it's a source to be cited like any other. All the more reason to be proactive about informing them! I don't imagine that that omission (or most such omissions) was the result of malice - but as long as it remains possible for such omissions to occur as a result of ignorance, I guess we still have our work cut out for us.

[robyn]

I am older than most of you people - and I have been on line since 1988

Err... I got my first email identifier in 1965, as part of the CTSS project. I was a summer intern at the MIT AI lab, and the stuff was being developed...happy days.

CTSS was the"Compatible Time Sharing System", and one of the first to develop an email system, and led on to many modern operating systems. The hackers (in the correct and polite sense) in the AI lab developed ITS (the Incompatible Timesharing System), that went on to be developed by DEC, and at least some of the ideas still live in Linux and Emacs...

Give these guys a break. I thought it was a fantastic article, witty, some original ideas and well researched, with a good feeling for the food. It inspired me to take dehydration more seriously.

Can we get back to talking about the food please?

It's good to find someone who's older than I am . For what it's worth - I really liked the article too. Robyn

[robyn]

Comes with the territory when you're writing on a message board and you're not copyrighting what you're writing.

All material on eGullet is copyrighted.

Then notify infringers when they're infringing. Robyn

[Fat Guy]

Comes with the territory when you're writing on a message board and you're not copyrighting what you're writing.

All material on eGullet is copyrighted.

Then notify infringers when they're infringing. Robyn

We do. This was not such an instance.

[balmagowry]

Comes with the territory when you're writing on a message board and you're not copyrighting what you're writing.

All material on eGullet is copyrighted.

Not only that; but there is practically no such thing as "not copyrighting what you're writing." Everything you write is copyrighted by default, unless you have explicitly waived copyright (in, for instance, a work made for hire). Not only do you not have to register your copyright - you don't even have to scribble a copyright notice anywhere on the work. You still own the rights to it. The only difference between registered and unregistered copyrights is the degree of legal leverage the former give you with the copyright office: if you've registered with them then their records of the circumstance will be available to you as evidence if you ever need to prove the copyright. (And I think - though my memory on this is fuzzy - there may be some other kind of legal support available through them. I should go back and read this stuff again....) Even then, violation is tricky to prove - but in theory your rights are as clear as the practical application of the law is murky.

[marlena spieler]

BACK TO THE EXCELLENT ADVENTURE:

Yes, please, loufood, tell us all the little tricks you can steal away from the Great Chefs of Paris! and in a nutshell what is the secret of making the foam stuff.

And i'm very jealous of ted and matts doing the column, cause i had had a similar idea percolating (dare i say languishing) in a back file for what was becoming years......alas, if i write it now, ain't too original any more!

But i've long been a fan of stuff like powders: orange powder, tomato powder and porcini powder are three that I adore sprinkling around the border of plates. It adds a shot of flavour but isn't too weird and hard to produce, whereas the nitrogen cylinder stuff, man, i don't think that many home kitchens are going to be experimenting with that.

I like the magic stuff going on in these experimental kitchens, but i see them in this light: they are little fripperies, items of stimulation, things that will enrich but not replace our evolving cuisine. Like with nouvelle cuisine, remnants of this molecular gastronomy will linger on and interweave with real food and real cuisine.

and yet, and yet, it is such a different way of looking at food. deconstructing rather than constructing.

things that look like dessert and turn out to be main course, and vice versa. olives dipped in honey for dessert along a sweet tomato pate with basil syrup for instance. (nice but i needed a chocolate fix afterward).

i think the fact that adria is opening a more traditional place as well as el bulli says it all. and when he eats out himself, what does he eat? traditional catalan food.

but its all fun, fun, fun. except when it gets weird weird weird.

[marlena spieler]

PS: and even the weird weird weird stuff can be fun too!

[balmagowry]

But i've long been a fan of stuff like powders: orange powder, tomato powder and porcini powder are three that I adore sprinkling around the border of plates. It adds a shot of flavour but isn't too weird and hard to produce, whereas the nitrogen cylinder stuff, man, i don't think that many home kitchens are going to be experimenting with that.

Funny you should say that. I too was fascinated by several of those things; am certainly planning to play with the powders (and I have not only a great $1 garage-sale dehydrator but also my blessed oven pilot light!) and... yes... I confess... I want to at least try that silly jellied martini thing... once, anyway. But the foam thing - I was wondering if something like that might not be feasible too. Somewhere around here I have a modern version of the old-fashioned soda syphon - takes those little CO2 cartridges, of which I probably have a few lying around as well. The effect would presumably be somewhat different, but it could be an interesting thing to try, no? In fact, I think I may also have one of those cream-whipping jobbies, the kind that uses little oxygen cylinders. So at least it's within the reach of home technology to aerate a substance; that is, oxygenate or carbonate it.

Any guesses as to what the result would be like? and what sort of substances would be good candidates for experimentation? I'm not about to rush out and do it this instant, but it's an intriguing back-burner temptation....

[edsel]

But i've long been a fan of stuff like powders: orange powder, tomato powder and porcini powder are three that I adore sprinkling around the border of plates. It adds a shot of flavour but isn't too weird and hard to produce, whereas the nitrogen cylinder stuff, man, i don't think that many home kitchens are going to be experimenting with that.

Funny you should say that. I too was fascinated by several of those things; am certainly planning to play with the powders (and I have not only a great $1 garage-sale dehydrator but also my blessed oven pilot light!) and... yes... I confess... I want to at least try that silly jellied martini thing... once, anyway. But the foam thing - I was wondering if something like that might not be feasible too. Somewhere around here I have a modern version of the old-fashioned soda syphon - takes those little CO2 cartridges, of which I probably have a few lying around as well. The effect would presumably be somewhat different, but it could be an interesting thing to try, no? In fact, I think I may also have one of those cream-whipping jobbies, the kind that uses little oxygen cylinders. So at least it's within the reach of home technology to aerate a substance; that is, oxygenate or carbonate it.

Any guesses as to what the result would be like? and what sort of substances would be good candidates for experimentation? I'm not about to rush out and do it this instant, but it's an intriguing back-burner temptation....

The foam stuff is really quite easy to experiment with. Balma, your soda-siphon-thingy is great for putting bubbles into liquids, but foams are best left to the nitrous-oxide devices like your (you think you might have one) cream whipper. ISI makes cream whippers in various sizes and temperature ratings. All of them can produce whipped cream with or without your favorite added flavorings. Unfortunately, the texture is reminiscent of the "canned stuff" - not surprising considering that the Readi-Whip-type products use the same basic method, just with the nitrous pre-charged in the can. Frankly, I prefer the hand-whisked method by far.

Where the ISI-style chargers come into their own is in making foams out of exotic bases. Coconut cream, mayonnaise, you name it. Adrià often incorporates gelatin into the cold foams to help them hold their form. I think he uses agar (kanten) in the warm preparations since it melts at a higher temp than gelatin. Supposedly one should use the "regular" cream whippers only with cold preparations. ISI makes a "professional" stainless steel line for cold and hot use. I've seen Adrià use one of the "regular" models with a warm sauce and it didn't explode. YMMV, I guess. I have a half-liter "regular" model and a one-liter Profi-Cream stainless. I've tried a few warm sauces with it but must confess I've been reluctant to use the gelatin or agar. I'm nervous about gumming up the works.

[balmagowry]

Thanks for the explanation! Yeah, the reason I'm not sure whether or not I have one of those cream jobbies is that if I do it was a gift I've never used - meself, I do all my cream-whipping by whisk or by mixer. But if I have it... that makes it, um, expendable. And if I don't... OK, here's my next idle curiosity (and it really IS idle - I'm curious about playing with this stuff but it isn't high on my must-do list, if you know what I mean). I haven't used the siphon in years, and I think I have two, which makes it sort of expendable. As you say, it's good for putting bubbles into things - assuming you charge it with CO2. But is there anything about the mechanism which limits it to that? The nitrogen canisters are the same form factor, and I assume the mechanism has roughly the same effect; that is, charging it forces the gas into the substance, also generating pressure inside the vessel. Depressing the valve on the vessel releases some of that pressure, and the pressurized substance with it. No? Granted that the formation of the nozzle might spray it in a somewhat uncontrolled pattern, still wouldn't one be sort of approximating the same process? Enough to play with?

OTOH, I suppose I should also be asking how dangerous this game would be, huh. The siphon is an ISI model, pretty solid. I'm a little less solid, but would exercise due precautions if I could figure out what they were....

[markovitch]

there are only three people here who are going to get this post, so this is for them:

thank god for Nitrogen Day