I've been pondering this term for awhile.........

Part of Speech:      noun
Definition:      informer
Synonyms: canary, narc, nark, rat, scab, snake, snitch, squealer, stool pigeon, stoolie, tattletale, tipster, weasel

......is a whistle blower a good or a bad person?...........what motivates someone to be a canary, narc, nark, rat, scab, snake, snitch, squealer, stool pigeon, stoolie, tattletale, tipster, weasel,whistle blower........is it something that's done for the good of the community, or done out of meanness or for spite. If you perceive something as being wrong do you become a canary, narc, nark, rat, scab, snake, snitch, squealer, stool pigeon, stoolie, tattletale, tipster, weasel,whistle blower, or do you hope that the truth will come out in some other manner?

Just a morality question from a geezer.  

What is wrong with telling it like it REALLY is....too much goes under the rug and what happens....

innocent people suffer consequences....where is justice for those who cause someone to "tell it like it is".

My dictionary has an entirely different meaning that I agree with:
Whistleblower:

~a person who informs on another or makes public disclosure of corruption or wrongdoing.
or
(Legal Dictionary)
~  an employee who brings wrongdoing by an employer or other employees to the attention of a government or law enforcement agency and who is commonly vested by statute with rights and remedies for retaliation

IMO, a whistleblower is doing the public or a group a service by outing corruption or illegal actions, while an informer is (according to my dictionary)" a person who informs  against another, especially for money or other reward".

I guess the key word I'm trying to figure out here is perceive........what if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck but turns out to be a small goose, and you've already blown the whistle.......are do-overs allowed?  

think the dictionary has to re-word definition...

Whistleblowers are supposed to be able to bring the chance that something is happening to the appropriate authorities, and the whistleblower is not supposed to be able to have any action come against them.  Supposed to, as you remember that most employment is as will, and can be terminated by either end.  This means that if someone is a whistleblower, the employer (if found out who it was) goes IMMEDIATELY to find every single thing that the person does wrong, and finds another reason to get rid of them.  This usually also leads to the employer "getting the word out" to make sure that there's a good chance that the same person is unable to get a job in the related field.