For the search results order there's
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43238 . For the rest, I'm
not sure; I've asked the Wikidata team to comment.
Andrew Leung, 13/01/2013 05:57:
I haven't had time to investigate on the accuracy
of the interwiki links on Wikidata but I think I could write an essay on how inaccurate
those links point to. Plus, where will you store reference links to articles that describe
the species. Certainly it's not on Wikidata or Commons and I rarely see editors do
that on Wikipedia. Through my examples presented above, I believe that Wikidata is
ill-suited to integrate with Wikispecies and in my opinion, we should be very cautious
about the data quality of Wikidata if we decide to import information from there into
Wikispecies.
I think the aim should be the opposite: Wikidata should be fed by
Wikispecies, which is the natural provider of this information, and then
other wikis should use this data for their infoboxes etc.
If the *presentation* of data on Wikidata itself is wrong/useless, this
is not a problem but rather something natural: it only means that
Wikispecies (like the other wikis) will continue to exist as
presentation of the data and other less structured information.
What you see now are only interwikis, so it's quite natural that they're
not of much value.
What I fear is multiple or dozens of Wikipedias feeding species data
into Wikidata in an unorderly manner. Deduplicating millions of data
entries from different sources is not fun.
But if Wikispecies doesn't take a lead and use its competency to make
sure this is done right, and if Wikispecies and/or Wikidata do not have
all the data the various Wikipedias have/need, then it will be
inevitable for unordered feeding of data (like sv.wiki's) to happen at
some point.
Nemo