Not true. The "definition" in Wikipedia is essentially saying that a complex system exhibits self-organization if there is order observed at various scales. I didn't read the paper -- but based on the abstract, it looks like there is some sort of structural phase transition at T_c = 253K (please correct me if this is wrong) which allows these molecules to energetically favor reassembly. This would classify, according to Wikipedia, as self-organization at a microscopic scale. Self-organization can be evident at some scales (but not others) in systems which are not self-similar, but you already know this, since you read the Wikipedia article.
> From biological to robotic swarms, very simple instructions can achieve amazingly complex results.
No one is denying the beauty of complex systems. That said, the versatility of the word "swarm" word is precisely what makes it trivial! One can only beg for more words. What kind of swarm? At what scale? A physicist will find behavior that can be poetically described as "swarm" in one place, and a chemist will find it in another place, and a biologist will find it in still another place, and at a different scale!
> I have a high confidence that when we actually do have a real self-healing technology, swarm will be an apt description of its nano tech.
This is meaningless! It's trivially true. Let me try it: "I have high confidence that when we actually do have a real self-healing technology, sinusoidal will be an apt description of its nano tech." You can't use those terms to describe what self-healing "should look like" since those terms are vague and non-mathematical (self-organization could be defined more mathematically).
In reality, I think you have an idea or imagination or intuition of what you think "real" self-healing technology should be, and you just aren't satisfied with what we're at right now. This -- I can accept, and I might even agree with you. But don't go around hand-waving buzzwords about what technology should look like, because there's no content there.