Why is Wikipedia not automated?

That might sound odd.

But I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to have Wikipedia spider itself with a view to turning more words in its articles blue. If someone puts a page up about a given subject, say the Waterloo Monument, would it not make sense to have Wikipedia—in its spare time, when it's not serving articles—to linkify articles that have the words 'Waterloo Monument' in them.

I think it's a good thing of course to have it human-edited, because machines don't yet have the common sense that seems to avoid the George W. Bushes of this world. But give it time.

In fact, would having a self-modifying database such as Wikipedia be maybe the first step towards a computer intelligence? If Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral repository, there should be no cases of corporate competition or litigation. Most of the pages I've read have [citation needed] or [This section does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality] and other such human generated directives.

Surely, if these directives are followed (and there is no reason why they shouldn't be. The world is editing it, after all) would it make sense to leave the editing to the humans and the linking to Wikipedia's future algorithms?