severe contest between intelligence and ignorance

What makes the "severe contest between intelligence and ignorance" of the online The Economist more severe?

Wilson blamed this state of affairs on “commercial restrictions”, which raise up barriers to intercourse, jealousies, animosities and heart burnings between individuals and classes in this country, and again between this country and all others and declared that the political battle was a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy timid ignorance obstructing our progress.
The Economist's personal take on the severe contest is that it describes the endless struggle between those who fight by proving and demonstrating the rightness of an idea (such as free trade) and those who fight by preying on uncertainty and insecurity to stoke up populist fears. The world of ideas thrives on the courage to embrace challenging (and often unpopular) opinions and the intelligence needed to discover the right answer. The other side of the conflict draws on the fear of change or challenge and ignorance of guiding principles and facts. The battle is endless because the rightness of an idea must be re-proven again and again in the court of public opinion: the forces of timidity and ignorance are never destroyed but merely quelled at best.
As publishers, how can we help to make this severe contest more severe? Surely, the answer is different for every age. In 1842, Wilson’s solution was to launch a newspaper. What about today, with all the technologies and communications infrastructure that we have at our finger tips? I don’t think that anyone has yet come up with a satisfactory answer to that question: a lot of innovation lies ahead, particularly for online publishing. But here are some thoughts about the ingredients we might need:
1. Diversity of thought, ideas and opinion. Our editors and guests can provide some of this. Our readers can provide more: the more fine minds that we convene and help to engage with each other, the more severe the contest.
2. A place or mechanisms for ideas and opinions to connect and compete with each other to prove and demonstrate their rightness, or fitness. This needs lots of innovation in online publishing – and in particular in social computing.
3. Impact. The severe contest is all about beating (or at least quelling) the forces of timid ignorance. A large enough publishing venture is needed for the right ideas to make a difference.
4. Global reach. All the most important and pressing issues are global in nature, more so now even than when Wilson published our first issue in 1843. If our problems are global, the ideas we find to solve them need to be global too – and they have to influence and shape the behavior of a global audience.
How well are we doing by these yardsticks? Or are these measures of severity wrong or incomplete?

Our recent survey on 'real names' vs. pseudonyms in pen names

We have wanted to encourage (not require) readers to use their real names when commenting on The Economist web site. Our hope is that increased use of real names will help the quality of online discussion. We recently conducted a survey to learn what our online readers thought about this.

You strongly objected to compulsory use of real names, and for some this is not advisable or safe. We agree with this response. You rightly reminded us that what looks like real names on the site may not be so. It is neither feasible or sensible for us to ask people to prove the 'realness' of their online names.

Some said they feel personally safe to use their own name, but worry for others' safety and care for the candor and liveliness that safety makes possible. We received some insightful responses about the complexities of striving for freedom of speech, privacy and civility, among relative strangers online.
"Real names increase trust but hurt privacy."
"I'd rather put up with the occasional rudeness than with lack of encouragement for people to express their views freely."
On the whole, we were encouraged that you view the use of real names as helpful to the community because it increases accountability and thoughtfulness in posting, as long as this remains an option.
"Using people's real names encourages users to view fellow commenters as real people, rather than pixels on a screen."
It was heartening to hear how strongly many of our readers feel about protecting the vitality of free speech and respecting the privacy of individuals.

We have not made any changes to the site on this topic yet, but will keep you posted when we do. Meanwhile, we are continuing to work behind the scenes on other improvements.