I would say that WebMD is better than Wikipedia. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and in practice this means content often comes from idiosyncratic people with axes t

I would say that WebMD is better than Wikipedia. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and in practice this means content often comes from idiosyncratic people with axes to grind. Wikipedia pages vary immensely in correctness, completeness, objectivity, clarity, and usefulness. WebMD, in contrast, is pretty consistent in all those ways; its flaws (wordiness, lack of reference to detailed research, catering to the customer) are of minor consequence to the typical person searching for medical information (we at HN are not the typical person). The best Wikipedia articles are better than the best WebMD ones, but the worst Wikipedia articles are worse, and in medicine it's the floor you care more about.