Right. But the way it was stated in the article makes it easy to think of it as the universe requiring rather than the observer requiring. The other versions explicitly get into that kind of nonsense; I wanted to state the weak version in a way that made it clear that it didn't go there.
(I suspect that this page states the weak version in that way in order to make the other versions seem more similar.)
An /observed/ universe requires conditions to cause observers to evolve.
I don't but that an "intelligent" observer is needed to collapse the waveform, BTW. That uses a very non-physical interpretation of "observer." Any particle that can absorb information, can be said to be "observing." As simple as a reaction that depends on temperature would do it.
(I suspect that this page states the weak version in that way in order to make the other versions seem more similar.)