My other papers, where I provided no artifacts, generate an average of zero support emails a year but are cited just as much.
The emails are often from first year PhD. students and are vaguely accusatory, along the lines of: "We're having issues replicating experiment X and wanted to give you a chance to correct/review before we publish on it." The cause of the issues is, 100% of the time to date, people not reading documentation or having more than a superficial understanding of the topic. However, I feel compelled to respond so that my old lab doesn't get dragged on twitter or at some conference over something that isn't true.
I barely got paid to do this sort of work when I was in academia and certainly don't now. If I could go back in time, I would have kept my research closed source. The personal benefits are essentially zero and the world would get along just fine if I had never written any papers, so the altruistic reasons aren't terribly compelling either.