• "patrolled" (as in Recent Changes "simple vandalism" patrol)
• "accurate" (i.e. "I am personally convinced that Everything

this article says is true and correct."

• "inaccurate" (contains mistakes, which we *hope* they'll mention on

the talk page)

These two tags aren't a bad idea; however, accuracy is a subjective term, often. Is it accurate in the mind of the tagger, or accurate in the mind of the encyclopedia? Also, the problem with dating occurs, because an article on, say, [[Ayn Rand]] may be accurate today. But if she writes a new book, or converts to communism, or kills 5 people in New Hampshire, the article, while still factually true, needs to be fixed. Tagging would not solve many problems there.

• "graffiti" (or "vandalism" = someone has messed up this version,

but I don't have the time, inclination or ability to undo the damage)

That's what, hopefully, users use IRC for. Alternatively, there are pages (Administrators' Noticeboard, while not the ideal place, would be a good start) to report vandalism that has been left unchecked.

• "balanced" (i.e., nothing has been left out or downplayed)
• "bias" (tells one side of a story, especially in a raging controversy)

Again, balance and bias is subjective, perhaps even more so than accuracy. [[George W. Bush]], while usually a great article, is occasionally tagged with a "neutrality/NPOV" notice. While, occasionally, the progression of time will result in the article gaining biased information, more often it's just a disgruntled person, who either supports Bush and doesn't like information that tends to go against him, or absolutely hates Bush, and is mad because his/her Xanga blog link about how "bush sux0rs!" keeps getting removed. Controversy would be even worse if there were an official status for this.