Also, the Wikipedia "Timeline of Fukushima nuclear accidents" has been reliable for the latest updates - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_nucle...
Also, the Wikipedia "Timeline of Fukushima nuclear accidents" has been reliable for the latest updates - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_nucle...
One of the problems with most "regular" news reporting is that it's very context sensitive. It's a tiny diff of info that assumes that you have already applied all of the previous diffs. If you want to understand a situation well this process can be infuriating. Wikipedia however actually distills down all the info into a complete and coherent whole making it a far more useful overall source of information.
However, there are some caveats. Wikipedia isn't well optimized for breaking news, so the hiccups in the process can cause more problems there than for other articles. Case in point, the wiki article for the Sendai quake/tsunami had very early on listed the number of casualties at an astonishing 6 million.
I imagine that was fixed pretty quickly. Things like that tend not to last very long.
In the end you get the classic "purple monkey dishwasher" problem of too many questionably reliable nodes on an information route, and then amplified by the prejudices and predilections of everyone involved plus the needs of the news organization to drive traffic in order to maximize revenue.
Quite a lot of "current event" incidents are badly covered on WP until some time after the fact.
Facts and figures could well be very wrong; with lengthy discussion on the talk page ironing it out. There is also a strong western bias in the writing/sources, especially (as it happens) with regards to Japan. Finally; people will tend to write their own interpretations and comment on such events; some of which hangs around longer than it should.
Use with care :)