The vast majority of stories don't make it to wikipedia, and wikipedia just regurgitates shit it gets from the news. If I could find an answer online I wouldn't need the news to actually do their job.
The overwhelming majority of stories I've found it useful for me to look up on Wikipedia ... tend to be there. Most of these tend toward natural disasters, industrial / infrastructure incidents, business/political news, possibly something in technology or the sciences. Not so much "human interest", celebrities/gossip, entertainment, etc., though I suspect some of those might also find their way to Wikpedia, modulo BLP considerations (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_livin...>).
Wikipedia does not merely regurgitate news, but processes, synthesizes, and very often balances multiple viewpoints.
And, just to give a current example, the sinking of Bayesian doesn't merit its own article (yet?), but there is a section on the page covering that yacht:
