Sorry, but I apologize the choice to have ISO and Ethnologue like main references about new wikipedias.
ISO and Ethnologue are not scientific and authoritative sources about languages. They have a lot of strange or arbitrary statements.
I exhort you to compare ISO and Ethnologue with http://www.eurolang.net/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=43 or with http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/languages/langmin/euromosa..., you can see a lot of differences. Perhaps ISO and Ethnologue dont recognize the difference between dialect and language, for example, or they have a confused distinction between the languages. Ethnologue has this problem because it born with the target to save minor tongues, but it exceed with some ridiculous cases.
I think that if my friends and I choice to speak something like our natural language but with some differences, for example changing the order of syntax, between ten years we can have our Ethnologue code at first, and ISO code (this is a consequence) at second.
The problem is that I read a lot of strange argumentations, some studies made by an author that has never spoken the idiom that he is studying, supported by ISO and Ethnologue and I think: "...oops at moment I have thought to have only spoken three languages, but I am polyglot: I speak ten languages!".
But the problem is not this. Wikipedia is strongly supported by community, but if the community spoke something strong differently to language (or dialect) of his Wikipedia: this is the paradox.
Ilario