Yes, I'd have to say that is a weak characterization of the Uncertainty Principle, but it's somewhat passable, and resembles a form that is often used because it resonates with our intuition that everything that happens was caused by something else (which is not necessarily the case). I see two problems with that statement of the UP:
1) It assumes there was always a momentum there, which got "changed" by the measurement, when in fact the way science uses momentum is as an answer to a question. When the question is not posed, it is also not answered, at least not by quantum mechanics.
2) In contradiction to what thorkil and Cougar have explained, it suggests that uncertainty is not fundamental to our description of a state, but rather that it is induced by the measurement. There is nothing in quantum mechanics that requires that view, though it can perhaps be made into a consistent interpretation if one wants to badly enough and applies great care.

Nevertheless, I do not bash the Wiki entry-- it really all depends on the target audience for the words. It is very hard to give a description that is at once technically accurate and widely understandable, and even what constitutes technical accuracy depends very much on the expertise of the judge.