Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Entrepreneur:Change Agent

Entrepreneur:Change Agent
no sources plus it's about economics not entrepreneurship and absolutely not about being a change agent -- what to do? I am not sure where this belongs -- is it plagiarism, original research...? --laurap414 03:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Original Research, Yes
Hey Laura. It is in fact based on my book, now cited in reference list. My predecessors are Schumpeter, Mises, and Kirzner, though none of them have formal models which I do.

Sorry to add a reply to your comment that it is not about change agent and not entrepreneurship.

Who has provided a satisfactory definition of entrepreneurship? Nobody. You cannot take a regular businessman who does nothing new and call him an entrepreneur. To be called an entrepreneur, he must bring about some change such as introduce a new product or process, create or enter a new market, organize a new organization or achieve legitimization of something previosly not deemed legitimate.

The more general concept takes this beyond the market and enters the political and cultural arena. Leadership in politics and charisma in culture both have elements of change and innovation, of doing something new. Overall, entrepreneurship as a social phenomen is about change.

I am aware of the wiki policy that no original research should be placed here. That seems totally counter to the spirit of free distribution of knowledge and knowledge products. My articles should not be removed just because they are new and at odds with old established ideas. They may be removed if they contain misleading statements of two types: factually false information or logically invalid argument. CheersGani 02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

But it's controversial, No?
Mohammad,

I must respectfully disagree with you that you can only be an entrepreneur if you are a change agent. Are you implying that someone who opens a sub shop is not an entrepreneur? That someone who starts their own carpet cleaning business is not an entrepreneur?

You must acknowledge that your views are not held by the mainstream of those who are experts on entrepreneurship. Also your article is not informative (explaining a topic for someone who is unfamiliar with it) but rather is rhetorical (but lays out an argument for your thesis on entrepreneurship). This does not meet Wikipedia criteria.

Also, I don't mean this in a bad way but it is a bit sneaky to introduce your ideas on entrepreneurship in a side article. If you really want to get some discussions going, why not make drastic changes to the Entrepreneurship article and see if your ideas hold water? Why not make bold edits there and see if you get reverted? Or at least post a discussion topic on the talk page for that article? I am not suggesting vandalism, but rather getting a good real debate going if you want to do so.

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, don't be scared off from contributing by our attempts to delete your article!

Laura laurap414 03:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Died on PROD. Closing.