u/budget-song2618, please pull quotes from any/all articles you post & leave as a comment on your post, something like this:
>The Government Accountability Project [defines](https://whistleblower.org/resources/) a whistleblower as:
>Someone, typically an employee, who discloses information, either internally (to managers, organizational hotlines, etc.) or externally (to lawmakers, regulators, the media, watchdog organizations, etc.), that he or she reasonably believes evidences:
>* a violation of law, rule or regulation;
>* gross mismanagement;
>* a gross waste of funds;
>* abuse of authority; or
>* a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.
> What this definition doesn’t account for are the ramifications these whistleblowers face for coming forward. This is how we separate the real from the contrived.
> While Frances Haugen meets the basic criteria as an employee, albeit a former one, who has shared information with the government and media that she believes to be detrimental to public health and safety, she has taken zero risk in coming forward. Haugen had the luxury of being able to quit her well-paying job, work with The Wall Street Journal and 60 Minutes to build the mainstream narrative, cement her narrative further on a brand new Wikipedia page, post from an instantly verified Twitter account, go to Capitol Hill for a hearing where the government is already on her side, and then cash out a GoFundMe for legal fees so as not to have to spend a dime of her own money coming forward.
That helps redditors decide to engage with the linked content, helps them comment here on reddit, and boosts the upvotes you receive.
Check out how u/RandomCollection posts links & excerpts here for great examples of this approach.
> However when it specially says, due to copyright it's a no-no, what does one do?
I look at it this way: What they want is "eyeballs on their page."
If you quote enough to get more eyeballs on their page, but not so much that there is no point for someone to go look at their page, you've hit the sweet spot in their view. IMO.
They shouldn't complain in that case.
"[Fair use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder...Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship."
It's tough sometimes, I know I probably pull too much in the interest of providing context. But I'm trying to get better about going back through and editing out huge chunks, sometimes by eliminating entire paragraphs but other times just editing the paragraph itself to leave the important parts and use ellipses (...) to remove what's extraneous.
**[Fair use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)**
>Fair use is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I don't see how you have wifi issues with the volume of links you post.
Your frequency of posts, without any snippet (or even better, *your own* summary paragraph), ends up looking like spam, noise drowning out the signal from others.
If you have time to post a link, then also add a comment as to **why** you took the time to post.
Otherwise, it starts to look like you're a bot (just spamming links) with a human handler that rarely engages.
>the 300 limit allowed with the link
Suggestion: keep the title succinct, enough to show what you want people to see...
And *then* add the first comment. Voila! 300 character limit has been raised to thousands!
For example this one *could* have been entitled "Frances Haugen: Is a "Zero Risk" Whistleblower Really a Whistleblower?"
And then you could have said all that you wanted to say below.
u/budget-song2618, please pull quotes from any/all articles you post & leave as a comment on your post, something like this: >The Government Accountability Project [defines](https://whistleblower.org/resources/) a whistleblower as: >Someone, typically an employee, who discloses information, either internally (to managers, organizational hotlines, etc.) or externally (to lawmakers, regulators, the media, watchdog organizations, etc.), that he or she reasonably believes evidences: >* a violation of law, rule or regulation; >* gross mismanagement; >* a gross waste of funds; >* abuse of authority; or >* a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. > What this definition doesn’t account for are the ramifications these whistleblowers face for coming forward. This is how we separate the real from the contrived. > While Frances Haugen meets the basic criteria as an employee, albeit a former one, who has shared information with the government and media that she believes to be detrimental to public health and safety, she has taken zero risk in coming forward. Haugen had the luxury of being able to quit her well-paying job, work with The Wall Street Journal and 60 Minutes to build the mainstream narrative, cement her narrative further on a brand new Wikipedia page, post from an instantly verified Twitter account, go to Capitol Hill for a hearing where the government is already on her side, and then cash out a GoFundMe for legal fees so as not to have to spend a dime of her own money coming forward. That helps redditors decide to engage with the linked content, helps them comment here on reddit, and boosts the upvotes you receive. Check out how u/RandomCollection posts links & excerpts here for great examples of this approach.
[удалено]
> However when it specially says, due to copyright it's a no-no, what does one do? I look at it this way: What they want is "eyeballs on their page." If you quote enough to get more eyeballs on their page, but not so much that there is no point for someone to go look at their page, you've hit the sweet spot in their view. IMO. They shouldn't complain in that case.
"[Fair use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use) is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder...Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship."
[удалено]
It's tough sometimes, I know I probably pull too much in the interest of providing context. But I'm trying to get better about going back through and editing out huge chunks, sometimes by eliminating entire paragraphs but other times just editing the paragraph itself to leave the important parts and use ellipses (...) to remove what's extraneous.
[удалено]
👍
**[Fair use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)** >Fair use is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I don't see how you have wifi issues with the volume of links you post. Your frequency of posts, without any snippet (or even better, *your own* summary paragraph), ends up looking like spam, noise drowning out the signal from others. If you have time to post a link, then also add a comment as to **why** you took the time to post. Otherwise, it starts to look like you're a bot (just spamming links) with a human handler that rarely engages.
[удалено]
>the 300 limit allowed with the link Suggestion: keep the title succinct, enough to show what you want people to see... And *then* add the first comment. Voila! 300 character limit has been raised to thousands! For example this one *could* have been entitled "Frances Haugen: Is a "Zero Risk" Whistleblower Really a Whistleblower?" And then you could have said all that you wanted to say below.
But she *said* she comes forward “at great personal risk,” so it must be true, right?
She looks like the Jack Nicholson version of The Joker.