Irony. The Effect itself got misinterpreted by pop science. Their study showed incompetent people don't
rate themselves highly competent, only, they can't accurately report just how bad they are. The competent individuals meanwhile accurately rated their own performance.
So the Dunning-Kruger Effect isn't about overconfidence, i.e. idiots who think they're experts. It's about idiots knowing they're idiots, who can't expertly assess their own idiocy.
there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know
That said, when I click your link PhDemon I get redirected to page of wistful ramblings about editing a magazine. I'm excluded from the science. So that article is a known unknown to me; I doubt my ability to speak competently about pop sci articles making non-scientists overconfident. But I can try.
I think that which pop-sci dubs the Dunning-Kruger Effect - we mean: the bad believing it is very good - that's really an ignorance of precision or accuracy, or both; or ignorance of additional variables. For example if I measure a volume of liquid with a graduated cylinder, I could do it badly without knowing that. I'd just think "20mL, right on!" perhaps inappropriately using a dollar-store knockoff with 5mL scale because it's easier to read. All sorts of things may be estimated too roughly: the truly Dunning-Kruger businessman would wrongly think he'd made a sale, because he's oblivious to the fact he forgot to leave a business card. Providing a means of contact is one variable that doesn't occur to him. So he thinks he performed perfectly. By this principle incompetence could feed overconfidence. We shouldn't blame pop-science for that kind of overconfidence. And it must be a rare or weak effect - the Dunning-Kruger study didn't detect it.
What makes pop-science popular, IMO, is that it twists a finding into an interesting
and often morally appealing message. That's in contrast to a conclusion that's simply common sense in hindsight. See how the Dunning-Kruger Effect got twisted by pop-science: in its correct form it's rather boring. The pop version doesn't even simplify the matter. It's wrong, but that wrongness feeds overconfidence no more than any other wrong theory. Climate change denial isn't true pop-science, for example, because it lacks the "just-so" quality and neither seeks to inspire a new understanding. The myth of trees screaming when cut is pop-science in pure form.
Have I said anything interesting