Yes, we do.
Mostly because it's more apt than any of the alternatives suggested here or any others that I can think of.
Is it a descriptions that'll be clear to all users? Nope, although the tech vs. non-tech issue is a red herring, I think. But at least "meta" is highly accurate if you know the term. Unlike, say "feedback," which much of meta is not, and makes me expect to get a pre-addressed email to the team. Or "help", which I'd expect to take me to something more like the FAQs.
The challenge we're facing is that meta is actually the... rightest word (unlike "rightest", which, well... isn't).
On the beta sites, we could potentially put some verbiage on the right where the under-construction-y stuff is, something like, "Have a question ABOUT the site? Visit Meta."
At the end of the day, if the person we're worried about is actually looking for something like meta, and they find the links up top (no one's suggesting they're too well hidden, just that the diction will prevent them from picking the right one), they'll almost certainly wind up at the FAQ. Which will quickly advise them of where they should go if they have a question ABOUT the site.