Judging the Stupidity of GitHub Projects by Stars and Forks

As opposed to judging the stupidity of blog posts by how facile their analyses are?

"I think this metric is much more accurate than you might first assume", and yet when looking at one of the "stupidest" projects, Jekyll Now, step number one in the README is literally "fork this project". And in this case, it makes perfect sense, since the goal is to get a yourusername.github.io blog up. That wouldn't be possible if they didn't fork.

At a much more basic level, this article conflates stupidity with a) making custom alterations that are never propagated back to the original project, b) misguided enthusiasm for working on a project and c) inexperience with git and GitHub instead of stupidity, per se.

I suspect a, b, and c account for a huge fraction of the forks. I, myself, have forked projects I respected and wanted to contribute to, but never got around to. But since there's no penalty for unused forks, users have no incentive to clean up their project list.