Ok here the question for you all. In this thread - Aussie “Sparky” Question ~ Electric Advice Needed someone asked about moving from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere and asked about electricity and what appliance would work and such. I posted an answer stating that computer (CRT) monitors were affected by their location on the planet and monitors are made specific to the hemisphere. I was called on this statement was asked for a cite. So after a quick search I found this page on the Webopedia site which backs my claim. No problems everything is fine.
Then we go over to this thread - What does degaussing my monitor do? and AcidKid asks Q.E.D. what he thinks of this (monitors and hemisphere page). I can only assume that AcidKid had read my post from the previously mentioned thread. Q.E.D. responds with “Whoever wrote that should be slapped upside the head.” and, “Where do people come up with bullshit like this??” Later in the thread Q.E.D… mentions that he has emailed Webopedia about the page which is removed and then Q.E.D. posts “An upate: It appears as though the Webopedia folks have removed that article. The Straight Dope fights ignorance and wins yet again.”. Ok not so fast there folks it appear though that Q.E.D. is wrong and in fact later in the thread he concedes defeat on this topic.
The part I find puzzling is on what basis did Webopedia remove the page? Which has been restored. As Q.E.D. states in post #12 Secondly, there seems to be precious little information about this on the web, other than the now-defunct Webopedia article and the FAQ you quoted from. What little I did find consisted of a parts listing for some sort of computer system, specifying different part numbers for N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere CRT monitors. And eve there, my gut feeling is that this amounts to little more than marketing adspeak.. So did Webopedia go with Q.E.D.'s gut feeling and just remove the page and if not on what basis was the page removed?
Now seeing that AcidKid doesn’t come back with another post I don?t know if he’s been updated that in fact Q.E.D. was wrong. How do we know? The point was the information was correct and Webopedia removed it because someone called B.S. Would Brittanica do the same thing if I emailed them about something on their web site, probably not. On doing some research for another thread I came across the site www.neardeath.com and other sites that I wouldn’t go near for a reliable cite.
Keep in mind I have no problems with what Q.E.D. did. My discomfort comes only from the fact that a factual page was removed by an online reference source. So are we meant to believe what these reference sites tell us or do we wait until they have updated and when exactly will that be. From what date will we be able to believe what these sites tell us.
So who do you believe and why?
Seeing as how there have been no replies to this question I am going to assume that no one here believes anything and that you will fall for anything. Maybe this should be in GD with the question being what is or isn’t acceptable as far as reference material is concerned. My point here was more along the lines of, if an organization such as Webopedia will make claims like “The number 1 online encyclopedia dedicated to computer technology” and when information on their site is called into question they immediately remove the information. What they didn’t check for accuracy before they pubised the page?
I really wonder how we are to trust what they have to say. This is why I asked the question “who do you believe?”
12 parsecs, judging by your quickness to jump on people here and in my GQ thread asking about Jesus as a “personal saviour,” I think you should consider easing up a bit on the caffeine. Seriously, you will get more responses - and kinder ones at that - if you aren’t so defensive.
Secondly, the most recent post in the first thread you linked to was in mid-December, and in the second thread the end of January. If you had an issue to raise, why not say something when those threads were active? The way these boards move, people have long forgotten about them. Really, what sort of response were you expecting now? 
I don’t get this at all. The Earth’s magnetic field is no different in the southern hemisphere from the north. Magnetic compasses work fine all over - they don’t suddenly go wonky as you cross the equator. If anything it will be near the poles that you’d have problems.
And tho’ I don’t have the time to read through all the previous thread(s) I’m pretty sure Q.E.D. knows what he(?) is talking about.
Well, I tend to evaluate things based on evidence. QED has a long and successful posting history and knows what he’s talking about most of the time. I don’t know who you are. Ergo, I’m going to go with QED for the time being.
Oh god did I not say “Keep in mind I have no problems with what Q.E.D. did. My discomfort comes only from the fact that a factual page was removed by an online reference source.” And the question as I stated is in regards to the reference source not Q.E.D.'s knowledge on the matter.
sunfish I thought your question in GQ was quite ambiguous and since my question here was a really in regard to reference material rather than an argument between Q.E.D. and myself, personally I would have thought Q.E.D. was correct if I hadn’t know better. I would normally accept what Q.E.D. says as I do not think he is stupid. So while you are correct these are dated slightly on this board I don’t think they are totally obsolete in regard to laying out the basis of a question. And I do think my question was rather straight forward. When asking for a cite what would you consider to be reputable as far as online resources go and why?
Let me restate a clearer question and also point out that I am not asking whether or not you believe Q.E.D. or me. I am asking when it comes to online reference source what sites do you trust and why.
For instance I will definately find it hard to believe Webopedia because they removed fact based on an assumption. Now next time I ask for a cite and some quotes from Webopedia do I accept what is quoted or do I ask for further evidence because my faith in Webopedia is now greatly dimished. So if a reference site removes factual information based on an assumption then how good can the rest of their information really be.