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