Additional women are starting to get coverage from things that approach, but are not quite reliable sources. I urge caution and patience. The important part is not that Wikipedia is first or scoops the mainstream press. The important part is that we get the article right, and keep the article in compliance with strict requirements of the biography of living persons policy. The serious claims that are being made about Woods are likely to affect his reputation and earning potential. To that end, for the claims of additional affairs, we should wait for higher quality sourcing than I'm seeing so far, such as the NY Daily News gossip section and Fox News' entertainment blog. (There's also the Economic Times, but that appears to be an outlier that is anyway simply parroting the Fox blog.) We would do well to wait until we get reports from papers of record, such as the London Times and the NY Times, with which to update the article. Certainly any tabloid is always insufficient. In between these two extremes, we should check to see if claims are widely reported and only include them if doing so would attribute due weight to the press coverage.