The Washington Examiner published a rather unflattering photo of Jimbo.

So?

I thought this was a forum for serious criticism of Wikipedia, not a personality driven "we hate Jimbo" campaign.

It calls to question whether there may be "personality rights" involved, which is very germane to discussion about Wikimedia Commons. Plus, this was in the "The Jimbo Phenomenon" sub-forum, which you may wish to start ignoring, Doc, because your complaints about my fixation on Jimbo simply inspire me to find even more dirt and irrelevancies.

I think that recently Jimbo has stopped, or at least reduced, acting like the 20 something "rock star" he apparently thought he was, and started acting his age - with a healthy slice of contemplation in his musings - and if that is because he has started looking in the mirror and found he wasn't fooling himself then I think it is all to the good.

Think of it as evidence based science to the effect of long term exposure to Wikipedia culture.

The pictures that media choose to represent someone are an indication of how the media feels about that person. Virtually every journalistic photo shoot includes both flattering and unflattering shots of the same subject; the choice to use an unflattering one is an editorial one and indicates here that the WaPo is less than enthralled with Jimmy-boy.

I agree the photo is unflattering. It always seemed to me that newspaper editors have a preternatural ability to instantly pick out the most unflattering photo possible from a huge group, which invariably is the one they use for the article. Still, it is well lit and doesn't show Jimbo's crows feet and other lines as much as other photos I have seen. Despite the fact I am over five years older than Jimbo and my hair is going white, I still look younger than he does.

Lately, I have sometimes referred to Jimbo as "Kevin Spacey's older brother". As you may have guessed, Spacey is also several years older than Jimbo.