It's absolutely true and nothing will ever change it. The fact is that likability and fun at the workplace can routinely trump the quality of the output. Especially if the manager is a permanent employee and they expect to spend their life at the company.
I work at a large company and have seen plenty of talented people sidelined and ignored exclusively because they were more introverted.
I believe that co-location forms a sort of prisoner's dilemma. If everyone is local, everyone benefits from increased collaboration, morale, etc. If one person is remote, they benefit more, while acting as a drain on the remainder of the team. And when everyone is remote, then everyone loses.
So you saved 15 minutes but cost your coworker 30. That's a net loss, and an argument for remote workers. When I interrupt people, I constantly have this calculation in mind.
In effect, the remote worker saved you from "acting as a drain on the remainder of the team," your post's main concern.
I am a remote worker, and routinely help coworkers with all shirts of stuff. It works best when everyone's remote.
Is that true in 2013? Are office workers in a tech company not judged by production?