I've also seen people who don't understand how his stuff works, and fork projects before cloning them because they think that's the process. A relatively small number of clueless people could result in a lot of pointless forks.
Indeed, if you're not quite sure what to do, then that would be an obvious one to try. And it'll work in the end, so you won't necessarily change afterwards.
How are you supposed to do it otherwise ? Where else are you going to push your commits to ? Its silly to clone, fiddle with git config, make a new git repo on github/lab and then push to your new 'manual fork'. Just use the fork button.
99% of the time, when I clone an open source repository, I just want to use it, not make new commits to it.
Obviously, if you want your own copy to commit to, then use the fork button. That's what it's for. But lots of people use the fork button even when their use case is read-only.
Yes, a complete and fully featured bookmark that won't disappear. It costs me absolutely nothing, and is ready to go when and if I need it. Why wouldn't I do that if I could ?
Yeah, this is what I do, too. Also keep in mind, though, that you'll need to exfil your fork if you think it might disappear at all from Github. They yank the original repo and all of its forks for example if they get a DMCA notice. Years ago, I set up automation that pulls repos that I've forked, so for me, the act of forking ensures I get a copy of the code imported into my personal Gitlab instance on my home LAN.
