Not that Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia is anything *remotely* like a New Media Orphan (in fact, one could say he is a new media ‘godfather’, in some respects), but interesting rejoinder *by* Mr. Sanger on Google News, with respect to an article written about Citizendium, his new authority-driven Wikipedia off-shoot.

Upshot of this was that Mr. Sanger felt the author got several facts wrong, and proceeds to go on a lengthy rebuttal as to exactly what numbers and facts were, in fact, wrong.

How?

Through Google News’ ability for people who are directly involved *in* a news piece to comment *on* that the news that is published.

Now, several months ago, I ranted and raved about this (not unlike, for example, how others ranted about the Jesus Phone, but I am a media geek, I suppose) — and still today, I stand by my initial irrational exuberance.

The ability for principals *in* a story to comment *on* a story, on a platform that has a gargantuan reach is *important*. It allows people to give their opinion that is unrestricted by the 5 second media byte, and it allows people to make sure that they are quoted correctly, or more importantly to set the record straight — particularly if the author of the story got the “angle” wrong.

And perhaps most importantly, it gives people who would not otherwise have a widely read platform *for* their opinions, to *give* their opinions without censorship — and, perhaps *just* as importantly — have their opinions be front and center.

Without them being drowned out by the multitude of comments by “ordinary people”.

Now, sure, its important that everyone have their say. Blogs are important, right? And sure, many *newspapers* these days have “comments” enabled for every single post. That’s also good.

But if people who are interviewed *in* a story want to comment on the story, they have to include it in with the rest. Most likely it will get buried in the avalanche of comments if its a particularly controversial story. And for the purposes of getting the *message* of the story right — I don’t think that this is as powerful as what Google News is doing.

Sure, they could also let everyone comment — but allowing people who are in the stories to do it first, is a great first step (if they realize it or not). Because those voices don’t get drowned out by the other voices (some of which may be insightful … others not so much).

I mean, let’s imagine Mr. Sanger, for example, if he wasn’t as digitally connected as he was. Google News provides a great platform for such an individual — a new media ‘orphan’, perhaps, someone who doesn’t have a blog, doesn’t have the juice or connections to get their opinion broadcast — to have his or her say, and more importantly, have it heard.

And that, I think, is the genius of Google News “2.0″ … where they are actively allowing people who are *part* of the story *give* their side of the story if they want, without any apparent editorialization whatsoever.

Is that going to “change online news as we know it” forever? Ok — I don’t now. But I think its a damn good first step.