Our Methodology

The Wall exists to document real-world captioning failures and inconsistencies.

If we are going to critique, we must also be transparent.

This page explains how submissions are handled, what qualifies for posting, and how moderation works.

Captioning issues are often invisible to those who do not rely on captions.

If you can hear the dialogue clearly, you may never notice when captions are inaccurate, incomplete, or missing entirely.

But for viewers who depend on captions, these failures are not minor technical glitches.

They are barriers.

The Wall exists to make those barriers visible.

We do not limit submissions to extreme failures.

If something seems off, it qualifies for review.

This includes:

• Inaccurate transcription
• Missing dialogue
• Mistimed captions
• Incorrect speaker identification
• Meaningful non-speech audio omitted
• Inconsistent formatting that disrupts comprehension
• Entire videos published without captions

The threshold is not perfection.

The threshold is access.

Many of the people most affected by captioning errors cannot easily audit, document, and publicly demonstrate those failures themselves.

That work often has to be done by others.

We do not claim to independently verify every submission in advance.

That would require scale beyond our current capacity.

However:

• Submissions are reviewed by administrators and moderators
• A team of volunteers helps monitor content
• Posts marked for review are prioritized
• Community feedback is taken seriously

When a post is flagged for evaluation, it is examined more closely.

Our goal is responsible documentation, not reactionary posting.

All submitted posts are archived.

Archiving serves several purposes:

• Preserving the original context
• Protecting against deletion or later alteration
• Maintaining an internal record of documented issues
• Supporting longitudinal review of recurring problems

Accessibility issues are often transient: a caption track may be corrected after publication. Archiving allows us to retain documentation of the initial failure while acknowledging subsequent improvements.

Transparency works both ways.

If a documented issue is corrected:

• Posts may be updated
• Context may be added
• Improvements may be noted

The goal is not permanent condemnation.

It is improvement.

If caption quality improves, that matters, and it should be acknowledged.

We are not a regulatory body.

We are not an enforcement agency.

We are not attempting to litigate individual mistakes.

We are documenting patterns.

We are defining standards.

We are encouraging better outcomes.

Documenting failures requires care.

We aim to:

• Present examples accurately
• Avoid exaggeration
• Focus on the captioning, not the individual
• Separate critique of infrastructure from critique of people

Transparency protects everyone involved.

It protects creators.
It protects viewers.
It protects this project.

Every post on The Wall is measured against a defined standard of:

Accuracy
Synchronization
Completeness
Readability
Meaningful audio representation

(For a detailed breakdown, see /what-good-captions-look-like.)

Without a standard, critique is arbitrary.

With a standard, critique becomes constructive.

For many viewers, captioning errors are exhausting.

They interrupt stories.
They distort meaning.
They reduce participation.

Most people who rely on captions do not have the time, tools, or platform to publicly document every failure they encounter.

The Wall exists to shoulder some of that burden.

Not to shame.

But to surface patterns.

And to push for better.