This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Entrepreneurship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Leadership in Entrepreneurship was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 May 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Entrepreneurship. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Djmtz53.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blaser80.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Although some roots of entrepreneurship are referenced in this section, there is no mention of entrepreneurship as one of the four fundamental resources in traditional economics, (i.e., Land, Labor, Capital, and Entrepreneurship) anywhere in this article. Since this view of entrepreneurship as a resource is a major part of the modern definition and how it is connected with other resources in an economic sense, it should be included somewhere here. Since it is seen as a resource, this section could lead into how the entrepreneurship as a human phenomenon is quantified, showing the natural resource potential from a statistically, economically, and scientifically accurate perspective, which is useful and informative on this topic. It seems placement should be in the History section, and should be included with re-write/re-organization of of that section to give a logical and progressive flow of ideas without losing the information which is already there. Here is my proposed re-org outline for the History section:
[]Entrepreneurship should be discussed, defined, and given historical perspective (including existing citations), with the inclusion of how it is a seen as a natural resource in modern economics today (with new citations as needed). These changes should be made in such a way that introduces how entrepreneurship became recognized as a fundamental natural resource in human economic systems the world over during the 19th and 20th centuries, leading to the understanding of entrepreneurship in modern economics we have today.
Following that... []An Entrepreneur, as one who practices entrepreneurship, should then be enumerated with its own definition, historical usage, development (including existing citations), and then include a sub-section on 1.) {what are generally considered to be} traits of an entrepreneur (the current parts under "SkillSet" could be moved here), 2.) the relative frequency with which these traits occur in the population (Journal of Psychology citations), and 3.) the expected number and distribution of entrepreneurial talent in the world (or country, local, etc.) population;(approximately 1 in 20, Gallop Research citations), as compared by the reported numbers of entrepreneurs (in the US) by SBA, Dept of Commerce, BLS, etc.
This information is painfully lacking in this informative article on Entrepreneurship, so that is why I bring it up for discussion. I am a wikipedia editor in the Physics Portal (under ~AK ( talk) 11:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)), but have not been active for some time. I am familiar with the concept of entrepreneurship in both theory and practice, and since I was looking for this information today but did not find it readily accessible on wikipedia, I figured I would mention it here. I would like the business and economics editing community for this page to consider incorporating this for inclusion in an article that is very important to both fields of knowledge. Thank you. Added March 9, 2015. ( ~AK ( talk) 11:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC))
Now, since about 2010, it has just become a buzzword and more or less means "business".-unsigned 08/26/2014
Or more accurately, it means "successful, aggressive business focused on growth and accumulating wealth, which benefits both the businessman and society". As such, it is just a political term used for the purposes of the debates surrounding the Great Recession. I don't have a problem with an article about an ideological position, but it should make explicit that it is about an ideological position and not pretend that it is about an objective concept. For your consideration:
and above all, this: http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=entrepreneurship#q=entrepreneurship&geo=US&gprop=news&cmpt=q seems to indicate that interest in the press in this term picked up around 2009, peaked around 2012 and is now on the decline.
Now I know that political economics is all about buzzwords. But really, Wikipedia can do better than parrot this. For crying out loud, the Global Entrepreneurship Week is about "exposing people to the benefits of entrepreneurship" and abouot making them "participate in entrepreneurial-related activities". This is just pathetic.
Apparently, modern "entrepreneurship research" as an academic field originates in the 1980s. As such, it would focus on the processes involved in the emergences of new businesses, and what dynamics contribute to their success or failure. This is not how the term is now used at all. It has now become the term for some sort of supposed virtue or desirable character trait, according to a paragraph which I have just removed from the page,
Basically, it would appear from the above, it's the neoliberalist's term for "The Messiah". What this boils down to is just 19th-century capitalism, "we need aggressive businessmen with carpetbagger mentalities who are willing to take every risk play the dog-eat-dog game and we will all be ok". Maybe we will, I have no opinion on these things, but I would assume that if people were serious about these ideas, they wouldn't need to hide behind jargon all the time.
If this was still in any way about research (as in, honest study of) on founding new businesses, you would expect the outcome to be more complex as "be an entrepreneur!". You would have to make very complicated statements on how taking risks and aiming for growth can turn out really well, but sometimes also leads to complete failure, and what (if anything) we know about the contributing factors. Instead it seems to be more or less about telling people "be like Richard Branson, be ab entrepreneur, have a manly chin, be sure to innovate and to take every possible risk with your capital and that of your funders and you will be rich and sexy". Of course nobody would buy it from me if I put it in these terms, but that's what you need jargon for, right? -- dab (𒁳) 15:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Discussion area for proposed merger of Entrepreneur to Entrepreneurship. Proposal date=August 1, 2013. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 18:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what policy you are citing here regarding the number of pictures in the article (as in its current state) is violating. Or is this just a personal feeling? Please be more specific before again removing content which has been a part of the article(s) for some time now. Thanks, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 21:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Re. recent revert: Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy section "User-created images", 1st paragraph. TMCk ( talk) 00:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Can it be that those pushing a certain POV on this article wished to supress it? The normal practice is that the talk page moves with the article. Lycurgus ( talk) 23:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, that it is not as you say is confirmed for example, here. Lycurgus ( talk) 05:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Re your recent edit of the Entrepreneurship page, copied below.
"(cur | prev) 03:31, 25 November 2014 IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk | contribs) . . (38,501 bytes) (-763) . . (→Recent developments: remove confusing, meaningless gibberish. This mumbo jumbo may be at best a niche, fringe idea and is not widely reported in the mainstream literature on entrepreneurship. Thanks.)"
I do not know how to start a talk page to discuss your edit. Could you do that? Entrepreneurship is a concept, which is far from stable, therefore, new inputs should be discussed. Also "Recent developments", which was the heading, is normally not widely reported. (Unsigned comment on 17:40, 25 November 2014 by User: Mdpienaar)
I guess the Google filters in your country and South-Africa work not the same. a Google search for "intequity jetems" in South-Africa shows the first researched paper with regard to intequity: jetems.scholarlinkresearch.com/articles/Management%20Accounting.pdf if you are interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdpienaar ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you should say that one has to get very rich first so they can then be an entrepreneur. And also to get a job, any job anywhere. Pepper9798 ( talk) 22:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
How can a homeless, sick person become an entrepreneur? Pepper9798 ( talk) 00:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Woo hoo, one among millions. Pepper9798 ( talk) 00:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Ferdinand Lundberg said in his 1968 book, "The Rich and the Super-Rich", page 299, the small enterprise in the United States is, and always was, a highly risky affair, which have been steadily driven out of business. Most who remain in business do so on the thinnest of survival margins, constantly financed by short-term bank loans, the constant prey to recessions, regional strikes or even vagaries of the weather. A simple run of unseasonable weather regularly drives out of business hordes of hopeful operators of small resorts, hotels, stores and service enterprises. [Then on page 94) The American system, businesswise, is a record of steady, almost unrelieved failure. It has failure literally built into it. Big corporations of established equipment suppliers sell and resell the same equipment to a long string of losers incited into action by florid accounts of success by the Wall Street Journal, Fortune and other media. The best advice to Americans is "don't." Pepper9798 ( talk) 16:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that this page has no "controversy" (dissent, drawbacks) section, which is probably one of the biggest global problems today (that the concept "you can become a rich and powerful individual" is so flattering that people now blindly accept anything associated with it as a "good".
Entrepreneurship is in fact one aspect of the neoliberal ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:FE06:D001:5949:BD77:CD59:58B8 ( talk) 16:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
That Ferdinand Lundberg quote above, would be a good start for a drawbacks section. 162.205.217.211 ( talk) 18:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello all. I don't really have a solution to my concern here...and am a fairly new Wikipedia editor/contributor. However, as someone who does research in the field, the definition provided for entrepreneurship is deeply problematic and fundamentally incorrect ("Entrepreneurship is the process of starting a business, typically a startup company offering an innovative product, process or service"). The classic definition pulls more from the work of Schumpeter and is much more correctly conceptualized as 'venture formation' wherein the venture may or may not be or become a business. While Schumpeter is mentioned later it seems to be somewhat mis-characterized to support the presented POV on entrepreneurship rather than as the work that frames the whole discussion. I thought about editing just that section but I feel like the majority of the article flows from there and such a localized edit would largely change the tone and focus of the whole article. Thoughts? -- 128.211.169.1 ( talk) 14:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Can a short definition of serial entrepreneur be included in the body of the article? Thanks! Triplecaña ( talk) 12:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Entrepreneurship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://pcbfaculty.ou.edu/classfiles/Mgt%206973_Entrepreneurship%20Seminar%20Fall%202011/Wk%202_Theory%20&%20Entrepreneur/Gartner%202001%20ETP_Elephants.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Instead of edit-warring, please discuss the disputed edit here. First of all, the edit misses basic bibliographic details - where was this study published (if at all)? Has it been reviewed? What is the author's expertise? I found a "Pearson MSc, PhD" via Google but his fields of expertise are robotics and engineering, not entrepeneurship or business topics in general. Secondly, most of the added paragraph violates WP:NPOV in its generalizing adulation of entrepeneurs. If the study has been written in the same uncritical PR speak, I strongly recommend to rewrite these parts. Lastly, aside from the questions about the source and the unencyclopedic biased language, Wikipedia is no venue to promote recent research (see also WP:CITESPAM) - such self-promotional edits are prohibited. GermanJoe ( talk) 07:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The first sentence of the " Social" section of this article says [quote:]
Social entrepreneurship is the use of the by start up companies and other entrepreneurs to develop, fund and implement solutions to social, cultural, or environmental issues.[51]
The problem seems to be that the word "of", there, is not followed by a proper noun phrase, as a "prepositional object". It is followed [only] by the word "the", and ... that's it. Then that is followed by some other parts of the sentence, ... but, those do NOT seem to be part of the "prepositional phrase" introduced by the word "of".
This situation seems to go all the way back to the edit that added (or, "created") that "Social" section -- namely, during this edit.
I would be happy to edit that sentence, but I do not know what that part of that sentence (starting with the word "of") should say.
Any advice? or comments? -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 03:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to comment that I reread that clause about 5 times, mostly in frustration at being unable to parse it, before arriving at the same conclusion(s) that you did. I was quite surprised to see such an expertly articulated analysis, in total agreement with my own thoughts, outlined with such precision here on the talk page.
The expertise of somebody who knows how to fix this is desperately needed... it may be unfair, but as it stands, this single red flag of a paragraph immediately warns the reader that the entire article may be of much poorer quality than meets the eye.
Funk munkey ( talk) 05:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurship_education - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_entrepreneurship - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_leadership - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_finance - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_economics - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_orientation - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_network - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_feminism Pasz4 ( talk) 12:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted the recent good-faith addition by @
Josefina Jonsson (SLU):, but would like to clarify some of the concerns about this new section: most of the statements seem rather vague and have been phrased in an "essay-ish" tone (first-person statements and speculative assessments should generally be avoided). For example: ...enables value for the community
is a generic buzzphrase - which specific "value" exactly? Or can help rural areas overcome the challenges
: which challenges? and how exactly? A second, smaller problem is the lack of structure in the section. It mostly consists of separate, only loosely-related statements, but does not form a coherent presentation of the overall aspect. A third, albeit minor, issue: the entire section relies on information published in Entrepreneurship & Regional Development. Ideally information should be based on a broader range of sources from diverse publications and viewpoints. Even if the presented information is reliable, relying on only 1 publication risks reflecting a possible bias from the journal.
Apologies for the lengthy explanation, but I wanted to try to offer as much constructive feedback as possible to encourage further improvements, and maybe a new revised version of this section. If in doubt, possible additions can also be discussed and tweaked here on article talk first. I'd be glad to help. GermanJoe ( talk) 14:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Interesting Topic Moshphil ( talk) 18:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Is it time for a section talking about the cultural impacts of entrepreneurship? Both the good and the bad of how 'enterpreneurship' seems to be everyone's dream. It seems to have a pretty big impact with teenagers idolising characters like GaryVee. I feel it's noteworthy. ElliotPadfield ( talk) 09:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change ‘This is sometimes been referred to as the functionalistic approach to entrepreneurship.’ to ‘This has sometimes been referred to as the functionalistic approach to entrepreneurship.’ or to ‘This is sometimes referred to as the functionalistic approach to entrepreneurship.’ 172.118.117.15 ( talk) 19:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
What does it exactly mean? In short 182.48.242.125 ( talk) 08:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tonai Moore ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Tonai Moore ( talk) 18:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the picture of Malala makes sense, there's certainly nothing in this article or in the Malala Yousafzai article that suggests she's a "social entrepreneur" nor is she called one in reliable sources. :3 F4U ( talk) 11:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
why are they called basic 222.127.246.89 ( talk) 12:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Entrepreneurship article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Leadership in Entrepreneurship was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 May 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Entrepreneurship. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: 1 |
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Djmtz53.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blaser80.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Although some roots of entrepreneurship are referenced in this section, there is no mention of entrepreneurship as one of the four fundamental resources in traditional economics, (i.e., Land, Labor, Capital, and Entrepreneurship) anywhere in this article. Since this view of entrepreneurship as a resource is a major part of the modern definition and how it is connected with other resources in an economic sense, it should be included somewhere here. Since it is seen as a resource, this section could lead into how the entrepreneurship as a human phenomenon is quantified, showing the natural resource potential from a statistically, economically, and scientifically accurate perspective, which is useful and informative on this topic. It seems placement should be in the History section, and should be included with re-write/re-organization of of that section to give a logical and progressive flow of ideas without losing the information which is already there. Here is my proposed re-org outline for the History section:
[]Entrepreneurship should be discussed, defined, and given historical perspective (including existing citations), with the inclusion of how it is a seen as a natural resource in modern economics today (with new citations as needed). These changes should be made in such a way that introduces how entrepreneurship became recognized as a fundamental natural resource in human economic systems the world over during the 19th and 20th centuries, leading to the understanding of entrepreneurship in modern economics we have today.
Following that... []An Entrepreneur, as one who practices entrepreneurship, should then be enumerated with its own definition, historical usage, development (including existing citations), and then include a sub-section on 1.) {what are generally considered to be} traits of an entrepreneur (the current parts under "SkillSet" could be moved here), 2.) the relative frequency with which these traits occur in the population (Journal of Psychology citations), and 3.) the expected number and distribution of entrepreneurial talent in the world (or country, local, etc.) population;(approximately 1 in 20, Gallop Research citations), as compared by the reported numbers of entrepreneurs (in the US) by SBA, Dept of Commerce, BLS, etc.
This information is painfully lacking in this informative article on Entrepreneurship, so that is why I bring it up for discussion. I am a wikipedia editor in the Physics Portal (under ~AK ( talk) 11:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)), but have not been active for some time. I am familiar with the concept of entrepreneurship in both theory and practice, and since I was looking for this information today but did not find it readily accessible on wikipedia, I figured I would mention it here. I would like the business and economics editing community for this page to consider incorporating this for inclusion in an article that is very important to both fields of knowledge. Thank you. Added March 9, 2015. ( ~AK ( talk) 11:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC))
Now, since about 2010, it has just become a buzzword and more or less means "business".-unsigned 08/26/2014
Or more accurately, it means "successful, aggressive business focused on growth and accumulating wealth, which benefits both the businessman and society". As such, it is just a political term used for the purposes of the debates surrounding the Great Recession. I don't have a problem with an article about an ideological position, but it should make explicit that it is about an ideological position and not pretend that it is about an objective concept. For your consideration:
and above all, this: http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=entrepreneurship#q=entrepreneurship&geo=US&gprop=news&cmpt=q seems to indicate that interest in the press in this term picked up around 2009, peaked around 2012 and is now on the decline.
Now I know that political economics is all about buzzwords. But really, Wikipedia can do better than parrot this. For crying out loud, the Global Entrepreneurship Week is about "exposing people to the benefits of entrepreneurship" and abouot making them "participate in entrepreneurial-related activities". This is just pathetic.
Apparently, modern "entrepreneurship research" as an academic field originates in the 1980s. As such, it would focus on the processes involved in the emergences of new businesses, and what dynamics contribute to their success or failure. This is not how the term is now used at all. It has now become the term for some sort of supposed virtue or desirable character trait, according to a paragraph which I have just removed from the page,
Basically, it would appear from the above, it's the neoliberalist's term for "The Messiah". What this boils down to is just 19th-century capitalism, "we need aggressive businessmen with carpetbagger mentalities who are willing to take every risk play the dog-eat-dog game and we will all be ok". Maybe we will, I have no opinion on these things, but I would assume that if people were serious about these ideas, they wouldn't need to hide behind jargon all the time.
If this was still in any way about research (as in, honest study of) on founding new businesses, you would expect the outcome to be more complex as "be an entrepreneur!". You would have to make very complicated statements on how taking risks and aiming for growth can turn out really well, but sometimes also leads to complete failure, and what (if anything) we know about the contributing factors. Instead it seems to be more or less about telling people "be like Richard Branson, be ab entrepreneur, have a manly chin, be sure to innovate and to take every possible risk with your capital and that of your funders and you will be rich and sexy". Of course nobody would buy it from me if I put it in these terms, but that's what you need jargon for, right? -- dab (𒁳) 15:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Discussion area for proposed merger of Entrepreneur to Entrepreneurship. Proposal date=August 1, 2013. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 18:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what policy you are citing here regarding the number of pictures in the article (as in its current state) is violating. Or is this just a personal feeling? Please be more specific before again removing content which has been a part of the article(s) for some time now. Thanks, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 21:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Re. recent revert: Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy section "User-created images", 1st paragraph. TMCk ( talk) 00:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Can it be that those pushing a certain POV on this article wished to supress it? The normal practice is that the talk page moves with the article. Lycurgus ( talk) 23:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, that it is not as you say is confirmed for example, here. Lycurgus ( talk) 05:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Re your recent edit of the Entrepreneurship page, copied below.
"(cur | prev) 03:31, 25 November 2014 IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk | contribs) . . (38,501 bytes) (-763) . . (→Recent developments: remove confusing, meaningless gibberish. This mumbo jumbo may be at best a niche, fringe idea and is not widely reported in the mainstream literature on entrepreneurship. Thanks.)"
I do not know how to start a talk page to discuss your edit. Could you do that? Entrepreneurship is a concept, which is far from stable, therefore, new inputs should be discussed. Also "Recent developments", which was the heading, is normally not widely reported. (Unsigned comment on 17:40, 25 November 2014 by User: Mdpienaar)
I guess the Google filters in your country and South-Africa work not the same. a Google search for "intequity jetems" in South-Africa shows the first researched paper with regard to intequity: jetems.scholarlinkresearch.com/articles/Management%20Accounting.pdf if you are interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdpienaar ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you should say that one has to get very rich first so they can then be an entrepreneur. And also to get a job, any job anywhere. Pepper9798 ( talk) 22:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
How can a homeless, sick person become an entrepreneur? Pepper9798 ( talk) 00:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Woo hoo, one among millions. Pepper9798 ( talk) 00:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Ferdinand Lundberg said in his 1968 book, "The Rich and the Super-Rich", page 299, the small enterprise in the United States is, and always was, a highly risky affair, which have been steadily driven out of business. Most who remain in business do so on the thinnest of survival margins, constantly financed by short-term bank loans, the constant prey to recessions, regional strikes or even vagaries of the weather. A simple run of unseasonable weather regularly drives out of business hordes of hopeful operators of small resorts, hotels, stores and service enterprises. [Then on page 94) The American system, businesswise, is a record of steady, almost unrelieved failure. It has failure literally built into it. Big corporations of established equipment suppliers sell and resell the same equipment to a long string of losers incited into action by florid accounts of success by the Wall Street Journal, Fortune and other media. The best advice to Americans is "don't." Pepper9798 ( talk) 16:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that this page has no "controversy" (dissent, drawbacks) section, which is probably one of the biggest global problems today (that the concept "you can become a rich and powerful individual" is so flattering that people now blindly accept anything associated with it as a "good".
Entrepreneurship is in fact one aspect of the neoliberal ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:FE06:D001:5949:BD77:CD59:58B8 ( talk) 16:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
That Ferdinand Lundberg quote above, would be a good start for a drawbacks section. 162.205.217.211 ( talk) 18:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello all. I don't really have a solution to my concern here...and am a fairly new Wikipedia editor/contributor. However, as someone who does research in the field, the definition provided for entrepreneurship is deeply problematic and fundamentally incorrect ("Entrepreneurship is the process of starting a business, typically a startup company offering an innovative product, process or service"). The classic definition pulls more from the work of Schumpeter and is much more correctly conceptualized as 'venture formation' wherein the venture may or may not be or become a business. While Schumpeter is mentioned later it seems to be somewhat mis-characterized to support the presented POV on entrepreneurship rather than as the work that frames the whole discussion. I thought about editing just that section but I feel like the majority of the article flows from there and such a localized edit would largely change the tone and focus of the whole article. Thoughts? -- 128.211.169.1 ( talk) 14:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Can a short definition of serial entrepreneur be included in the body of the article? Thanks! Triplecaña ( talk) 12:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Entrepreneurship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://pcbfaculty.ou.edu/classfiles/Mgt%206973_Entrepreneurship%20Seminar%20Fall%202011/Wk%202_Theory%20&%20Entrepreneur/Gartner%202001%20ETP_Elephants.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Instead of edit-warring, please discuss the disputed edit here. First of all, the edit misses basic bibliographic details - where was this study published (if at all)? Has it been reviewed? What is the author's expertise? I found a "Pearson MSc, PhD" via Google but his fields of expertise are robotics and engineering, not entrepeneurship or business topics in general. Secondly, most of the added paragraph violates WP:NPOV in its generalizing adulation of entrepeneurs. If the study has been written in the same uncritical PR speak, I strongly recommend to rewrite these parts. Lastly, aside from the questions about the source and the unencyclopedic biased language, Wikipedia is no venue to promote recent research (see also WP:CITESPAM) - such self-promotional edits are prohibited. GermanJoe ( talk) 07:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The first sentence of the " Social" section of this article says [quote:]
Social entrepreneurship is the use of the by start up companies and other entrepreneurs to develop, fund and implement solutions to social, cultural, or environmental issues.[51]
The problem seems to be that the word "of", there, is not followed by a proper noun phrase, as a "prepositional object". It is followed [only] by the word "the", and ... that's it. Then that is followed by some other parts of the sentence, ... but, those do NOT seem to be part of the "prepositional phrase" introduced by the word "of".
This situation seems to go all the way back to the edit that added (or, "created") that "Social" section -- namely, during this edit.
I would be happy to edit that sentence, but I do not know what that part of that sentence (starting with the word "of") should say.
Any advice? or comments? -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 03:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to comment that I reread that clause about 5 times, mostly in frustration at being unable to parse it, before arriving at the same conclusion(s) that you did. I was quite surprised to see such an expertly articulated analysis, in total agreement with my own thoughts, outlined with such precision here on the talk page.
The expertise of somebody who knows how to fix this is desperately needed... it may be unfair, but as it stands, this single red flag of a paragraph immediately warns the reader that the entire article may be of much poorer quality than meets the eye.
Funk munkey ( talk) 05:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurship_education - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_entrepreneurship - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_leadership - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_finance - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_economics - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_orientation - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_network - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_feminism Pasz4 ( talk) 12:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted the recent good-faith addition by @
Josefina Jonsson (SLU):, but would like to clarify some of the concerns about this new section: most of the statements seem rather vague and have been phrased in an "essay-ish" tone (first-person statements and speculative assessments should generally be avoided). For example: ...enables value for the community
is a generic buzzphrase - which specific "value" exactly? Or can help rural areas overcome the challenges
: which challenges? and how exactly? A second, smaller problem is the lack of structure in the section. It mostly consists of separate, only loosely-related statements, but does not form a coherent presentation of the overall aspect. A third, albeit minor, issue: the entire section relies on information published in Entrepreneurship & Regional Development. Ideally information should be based on a broader range of sources from diverse publications and viewpoints. Even if the presented information is reliable, relying on only 1 publication risks reflecting a possible bias from the journal.
Apologies for the lengthy explanation, but I wanted to try to offer as much constructive feedback as possible to encourage further improvements, and maybe a new revised version of this section. If in doubt, possible additions can also be discussed and tweaked here on article talk first. I'd be glad to help. GermanJoe ( talk) 14:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Interesting Topic Moshphil ( talk) 18:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Is it time for a section talking about the cultural impacts of entrepreneurship? Both the good and the bad of how 'enterpreneurship' seems to be everyone's dream. It seems to have a pretty big impact with teenagers idolising characters like GaryVee. I feel it's noteworthy. ElliotPadfield ( talk) 09:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change ‘This is sometimes been referred to as the functionalistic approach to entrepreneurship.’ to ‘This has sometimes been referred to as the functionalistic approach to entrepreneurship.’ or to ‘This is sometimes referred to as the functionalistic approach to entrepreneurship.’ 172.118.117.15 ( talk) 19:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
What does it exactly mean? In short 182.48.242.125 ( talk) 08:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tonai Moore ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Tonai Moore ( talk) 18:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the picture of Malala makes sense, there's certainly nothing in this article or in the Malala Yousafzai article that suggests she's a "social entrepreneur" nor is she called one in reliable sources. :3 F4U ( talk) 11:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
why are they called basic 222.127.246.89 ( talk) 12:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)