When searching for socialist dictatorships, the relevant bit of information is that the application of Marxist theory in practice—especially in the 20th and 21st centuries—has always resulted in authoritarian rule, human rights abuses, and repression and economic hardship for hundreds of millions. And yes, Venezuela and Iran are examples of that. Every. Single. Time. Communism, Marxism, ... never resulted in the magical la-la-land that keeps getting promised. Not once. With irrelevant exceptions, like ironically Israel, whose parliament peacefully chose to abandon communism rather than repress the population into total misery.

The question was why Wikipedia needs to hide the examples of total socialist failures and instead pushes TINY details of Marxist theory. "Socialist dictatorship" obviously also refers to the many countries where socialism has resulted in repression, hardship and failure rather than justice, and hiding that is obviously not neutral.

Similar to the Gaza genocide page. One viewpoint, anything but neutral, is pushed to the total exclusion of the obvious alternate viewpoints. Even the extreme viewpoint on the other side has merit: that what Hamas is doing is at the very least attempted genocide (that is nothing new for Hamas: they have in the past successfully committed genocide against other Palestinian factions, the very definition of genocide, more than once. Plus, of course, that a terrorist organization that has mass-murder as an explicit goal in their charter is obviously not very concerned with human rights), and what Israel is successfully doing is not genocide. But that shall not be discussed (read the talk page).

Is that neutrality?

It's also extremely obvious that Wikipedia's bias is first and foremost about extreme leftist propaganda (extreme meaning viewpoints that even regular leftists would take offense to), not about Gaza. Take the icons of communism, you see the same. Leon Trotsky is obviously first and foremost a mass-murderer. That's what we call a military commander who had hundreds of people's bones broken and then thrown into the sea, who locks a school with children inside and burns it to the ground, no matter how "bourgeois" those children were (not that the children were very bourgeois at all). And yes, the other side also did bad things. But it is entirely left out. Why? This is not some tiny detail. All that is discussed are very fine details of different branches of communism. Or take the actions of prominent leftist states against immigration, violent anti-religionism or anti-LGBT socialist violence is silenced (illustrating that there have been huge swings in socialist thought). Or the fact that socialism was, and is, very much opposed to science (and I don't just mean Lysenkoism or North Korea's pine needle tea against famine). Yet all these were, and are, part of all big communist states. Soviets did that. China did (and does) that. North Korea does that. Even Cuba gives it a try now and then.