Unfortunately, Wikipedia disagrees with mathematics and computer science mote often than not. You wouldn't believe how often I find myself in situations like that:
"The given graph has this-and-that property"
<simple proof by counter-example that the graph doesn't have the property proposed>
"But it has to have this-and-that property!"
"What part of the proof is unclear to you?"
"...It says so on Wikipedia!"
Unfortunately, the number of people I have to deal with who think that "It says so on Wikipedia" makes whatever they say the truth increases, while it becomes more and more difficult to convince them otherwise. Wikipedia is *not* an alternative to a book on graph theory, and is *especially* not an alternative to think for yourself. It is common to define attributes like length for a path. What is a longest path, if you allow it to be a walk? What is the shortest path, if the graph is not conservative? While you can define that "path" means "The Knights Who Say Ni!", this isn't exactly the thing you should do in order to make clear what you mean.
[/rant on wikipedia, and my apology to the thread owner for hijacking it. I'll shut up now.]