Alright, fair enough. You could argue these writers are implicitly claiming to be meta-experts, that is, they have superior understanding of the nature and loc

Alright, fair enough. You could argue these writers are implicitly claiming to be meta-experts, that is, they have superior understanding of the nature and location of expertise than other people do, although they don't. But I guess this sort of subjective argument is why I don't like Dunning-Kruger as a concept. Especially given that it's an output of social psychology, a field that started to collapse once outsiders from other fields i.e. non-experts started critically thinking about the content of psychology papers. Seems kind of ironic.